P L D 2002 Supreme Court 243 (PLP)

HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.

These Civil Appeals with leave of this Court are directed against judgment dated 21-11-1996 in Writ Petitions No.448-449 of 1983 and 136 of 1984 passed by learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby .order dated 11-10-1983 passed by Commissioner, C.D.A. was declared illegal and without lawful authority consequently orders dated 6-8-1979, 31-5-1981, 20-10-1982 and 28-5-1983 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner, C.D.A. were also declared to have been vitiated and the order dated 17-12-1979 passed by Mr. M.R. Khalid, Commissioner, C.D.A., Rawalpindi Division was restored alongwith consequential orders in respect of the respondents including award dated 31 5-1981 given by Mr. Muhammad Ali, Deputy Commissioner, C.D.A. Brief facts of the case are that the lands of respondents and others situated in the area of village Mohrian, Chatha Bakhtawar, Tamma and Majuhan, Tehsil and District Islamabad were acquired by the appellant/C.D.A. in the years 1978, 1979, 1981 and 1982 in respect of Khasra Nos. stated in the awards under the provisions of Capital Development Authority Ordinance No. XXIII of 1960 (hereinafter called the Ordinance). Four Awards dated 26-5-1979, 6-8-1979, 31-5-10,81 and 20-10-1982 in respect of the land of the respondents and others were passed by the Deputy Commissioner, C.D.A. However, owner Sub. Faqir Shah whose land was acquired in terms of award dated 26-5-1979 preferred Appeal No.356 of 1979 and C.D.A. also preferred Appeal No.358 of 1979 before the Commissioner (Revenue), C.D.A., Rawalpindi. The Commissioner, C. D. A. disposed of abovesaid appeals enhancing the compensation for various categories of land as per order dated 17-12-1979. The landowners preferred appeals and C.D.A. filed a Review Petition against the said order dated 17-12-1979 before the Commissioner, C.D.A. who as per his order dated 11-10-1983 accepted all the appeals and review petition with the direction to Deputy Commissioner, C.D.A. to' compute compensation in terms of guidelines stated in the said order. As a consequence of the order dated 11-10-1983 passed by the Commissioner, C.D.A, the Deputy Commissioner, C.D.A. as per his order dated 29-10-1983 disposed of all the cases as per guidelines given to him. The landowners preferred Writ Petitions No.448, 449 of 1983 and 136 of 1984 wherein they challenged the order dated 11-10-1983 passed by Kh. Zaheer Ahmad, Commissioner. C.D A. and order dated 29-10-1983 passed by Deputy Commissioner, C.D.A. in consequence of the order passed by former. The learned Judge in Chambers as per impugned judgment allowed all the writ petitions and restored the order of Commissioner dated 17-12-1979 as stated above. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Before we deal with the main appeals we intend to dispose of three miscellaneous applications filed in Civil Appeal No.477 of 1998. C.M.A. No. 2055 of 2001 is for impleading Said Muhammad as respondent C.M.A. No.2057 of 2001 is moved for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.1 Muhammad Yousaf and C.M.A. No. 2057 of 2001 is for bringing on record the legal heirs of Abdul Ghani; respondent No.4, Muhammad Din, respondent No.5 and Qurban Ali, respondent No.6 in Civil Appeal No.477 of 1998. All the three said applications are allowed. This Court as per order dated 12-3-1998 granted leave to appeal. Para. 4 of the leave granting order reads as under:-- After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length and reading the record with their assistance, we hold that this is a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to determine whether or not the compensation was allowed to the owners of the land keeping in view the mandate of law contained in sections 2-K, 30 and 36 of the C.D.A. Ordinance, 1960. Contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant/C.D.A. are that learned Judge in Chambers has misread and misinterpreted the relevant provisions of law with regard to the award of compensation of land of the respondents and further that there were legal and factual errors apparent on the face of record therefore Kh. Muhammad Zaheer, Commissioner, C.D.A. had exercised powers on review petition within four corners of law hence the same could not be set aside. He also submitted that the compensation with regard to the acquisition of land could be awarded in terms of sections 2(k) (ii), 30 and 31 of the Ordinance and no other factors could be taken into consideration for the award of compensation consequently order dated 1,1-10-1983 passed by the Commissioner, C.D.A. on review petition and order dated 29-10-1983 passed by Deputy Commissioner, C.D.A. under the guidelines of Commissioner, C.D.A. were legal and not open to exception by the learned High Courts. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that order dated 11-10-1983 passed by Kh. Zaheer Ahmad, Commissioner, C.D.A., Islamabad is illegal and without jurisdiction considering that there was neither discovery of new and important evidence nor there was any error apparent on the face of record nor any other sufficient reason for reviewing the order passed by his predecessor. It was further contended that there was no case before the Commissioner, C.D.A. which could have warranted interference under section 36 of the said Ordinance. It was also contended that the learned Judge in Chambers has rightly restored the order dated 17-12-1979 passed by Mr. M.R. Khalid, Commissioner, C.D.A. as* he had awarded compensation to the landowners in accordance with the provisions of sections 2(k)(ii), 30 and 31 of the Ordinance in accordance with the guidelines provided by the superior Courts with regard to the determination of fair compensation in terms of sections 2(k), 30 and 31 of the Ordinance. The main point for determination in these appeals is whether or not compensation allowed to the landowners was, awarded in accordance with sections 2(k), 30, 31 and 36 of the Ordinance and further whether the High Court was not legally justified to interfere with the order passed on review petition by Kh. Zaheer Ahmad, Commissioner, C.D.A. Relevant provisions of the Ordinance with regard to the award of compensation are reproduced below:-- "

2. Definitions.-- (k) 'market value' means

(i) in relation to land acquired before the first day of January, 1968, the average market value thereof prevailing during the period commencing the first day of January, 1954: and ending on the thirty-first day of December, 1958; (ii) in relation to land acquired on or after the first day of January, 1968, the aggregate of the average market value as aforesaid determined with reference to its classification recorded in the Register of Haqdaran Zamin as in force on that day and twenty-five per cent. of such value; and (iii) in relation to land acquired on or after the first day of January, 1966, the market value as may be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as applicable in the Province of the Punjab." "

30. Matters to be considered in determining compensation.--(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Ordinance. The Deputy Commissioner shall take into consideration, first, the market value of the land on the date of order of its acquisition made under section 25; secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of dispossession of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land; thirdly, the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land by reason of severing such land from his other land. fourthly, the damage, if any, sustained by the persons interested at the time of taking possession of this land by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property,, movable or immovable, in any other manner or his earnings; and fifthly, if in consequence of the acquisition of the land the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change. (2) In addition to the value of the land determined as aforesaid, the Deputy Commissioner shall in every case award a sum of fifteen per centum on such value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. 1:n relation to land acquired on or after the first day of January, 1996, in addition to the value of the land determined as aforesaid, the Deputy Commissioner shall in every case award a sum of twenty per centum on such value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.

31. Factors to be ignored in determining compensation --In determining compensation as aforesaid, the Deputy Commissioner shall not take into consideration first, the degree of urgency which has led to the acquisition; secondly, any disinclination of the person interested to part with the land acquired; thirdly, any damage sustained by him, which, if caused by a private person would not render such person liable to a suit; fourthly, any increase likely to accrue to the value of the land acquired from the use to which such land will be put on acquisition; and fifthly, any increase likely to accrue to the value of the other land of the person interested from the use to which the land acquired will be put. " Regulation 6 of the Land Acquisition Regulation, 1961 (hereinafter called the said regulation) reads as follows:-- 6.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner shall, in order to facilitate the enquiry into the value of land and the claims of persons interested cause to be prepared a self-contained report in the Lands Directorate which shall among other things supply the following information in detail for the assessment of the compensation of the land under acquisition:-- (a) The market value of land as defined in, the Ordinance and the Rules framed thereunder. (b) The market value of land in the neighboring villages. (c) The price paid in private transactions as mentioned in register of mutations during the period intervening the first day of January, 1954 and the 31st day of December, 1958. (d) Such other information as may be relevant or necessary with due regard to the provisions of sections 30 and 31 of the Ordinance. (2) The Lands Directorate tray seek expert advice and assistance in the evaluation of built-up property and trees, etc. (3) A copy of the relevant portion of the settlement field tray in which the land is situated, with the boundaries of the land in question marked on it, shall be filed alongwith the Patwari-Surveyor's papers and shall form part of the proceeding in each case. Subsections (3) and (4) of section 36 read thus:-- (3) The Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner, either, of his own motion or on an application trade in this behalf, at any time within five years from the date of an award or order made or passed by himself or by any of his predecessors in Office, including an award or order made or passed before the commencement of the Capital Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 1966, may, after giving the parties concerned a notice and an opportunity of being heard, review the award or order and pass such order thereon as he may Provided that an order under this subsection shall not, except in so far as it corrects an arithmetical, clerical or patent error or mistake in the award or order under review, enhance the amount of compensation awarded. (4) Any amount paid to any person which is found, for any reason including fraud or misrepresentation, not to be due or in excess of the amount he is entitled to under the award or order as reviewed under subsection (3), shall be recoverable by the Authority and the Deputy Commissioner shall call upon such person to refund it. In terms of Regulation 5(1) of the abovesaid Regulation, person interested in the land has to submit in writing particulars of his claim to compensation and the amount of claim in respect of land so acquired to the Deputy Commissioner who on receipt of the same has to fix a date for hearing with notice to the claimants. Deputy Commissioner in terms of Regulation 6 in order to facilitate the enquiry into the value of land and claim of the person interested cause to be prepared a self-contained report which would supply information in detail for the assessment of the compensation of the land under, acquisition. The enquiry as required by the abovesaid Regulation was directed by the Commissioner, C.D.A. Rawalpindi Division to be conducted by the Local Commissioner appointed by him who after his visit on the site in presence of parties submitted report Exh.P.A/1 alongwith site plan P.A. a copy of Register Khasra Girdawari P.A./2 and Fard Badal P.A./3 showing classification in respect of the land so acquired stating that no entries in the Register Khasra Girdawari were available from Kharif 1969 to Rabi 1972 and Kharif 1974 to Rabi 1979. Mr. M.R. Khalid, Commissioner, C.D.A. in his order dated 17-12-1979 considered the report of the Local Commissioner with regard to classification of land at the time of acquisition and followed the guidelines laid down in case of Sardar Begum and others v. Capital Development Authority arid others (PLD 1977 Lahore 1200) for the determination of fair compensation in terms of section 2(k) (ii) of the Ordinance. The said guidelines as mentioned at page 1211 of cited case are:-- (i) the Deputy Commissioner is first to determine and find out as what is the classification of land acquired as recorded in the Register of Haqdaran Zamin as in force on 1-1-1968; (ii) he is to determine and find out as to what was the average market value thereof during the period 1-1-1954 to 31-12-1958, while doing so he has to consider classification recorded in the Register Haqdaran Zamin which existed on 1-1-1968 which classification has to be given retrospective effect and is to be considered as classification of 1-1-1968 was in force during the period 1-1-1954 to 31-12-1958; (iii) to the average value so determined he is then to add 25% thereof; (iv) the aggregate so obtained by adding the (ii) and (iii) will thus come out and constitute, to be the 'market value' of the land within the meaning of section 2(k) (ii) of the Ordinance, which the Deputy Commissioner is inter alia required to keep under consideration while awarding and assessing compensation under section 31 of the Ordinance; (v) the material date of compensation however is the date of acquisition and not any other date; (vi) that while compiling the compensation amount, the potential value of the land as on acquisition day is not to be lost sight of and is to be duly taken into consideration for whatever worth it may be; (vii) he is also not to exclude from consideration the individual merits of a particular land acquired within the same classification to which that land belongs or in other words without affecting or changing the general classification of that land; (viii) potential value of the land on the day of acquisition despite pegging of classification of land on 1-1-1968 can safely be attended which pegging of classification would obviously be as on 1-1-1968 and not the acquisition day because acquisition day in each case being different cannot be considered pegging day. Technically market value would not affect individual merits of particular piece of land while remaining within or without effecting or altering its relevant classification for compensation amount. The Commissioner in his order dated 17-12-1979 stated that the Deputy Commissioner, C.D.A. had not calculated the data about market value as technically defined under section 2(k) of the Ordinance. He further observed that factors as stated in paragraph 6 of Land Acquisition Regulation, 1961 with regard to market value of the land in the neighboring villages would also be a relevant factor and the change in classification at the time of acquisition leading to improvement in the classification would also be relevant factor so also considering that the land in dispute being situated towards Murree Road and Islamabad Highway close to Faizabad Chowk being part of Pindi Town so also adjacent, already having been acquired for Poultry and Vegetable Scheme consequently considering all factors stated, above compensation was determined. Learned Commissioner Kh. Zaheer Ahmad who exercised the review powers under section 36 of the Ordinance has observed in his order dated 11-10-1983 that-- (i) the respondents could not have pleaded equity in the payment of compensation on the basis of same compensation having already been granted to other affectees of the same land on the ground of estoppel against the law; (ii) in case the order impugned suffers from infirmities given in subsection (3) of section 36 of the Ordinance review would be maintainable; (iii) compensation having not been computed or determined as contained in sections 2(k), 30 and 31 of the Ordinance would be eventuality and infirmity in the order liable to be rectified in the review; (iv) impugned orders did not inspire confidence the same are based on complete disregard of the legislative provisions as contained in sections 2(k),30 and 31 and lack of proper interpretation of ratio in PLD 1977 Lahore 1200 and PLD 1976 SC 752. (v) The pronouncement in the above cases by the superior Courts, meaning assigned and construction given could not be shared by him which misinterpretation constituted mistake patent on the, face or record. Kh. Zaheer Ahmad, Commissioner, C.D.A./Deputy Commissioner, I.C.T. in the impugned order stated that "It is therefore, for this reason that varying meaning assigned and construction given to above mentioned rulings of the superior courts are not shared by this Court. Among other things this interpretation constitutes mistake patent on the face of the record" and he reviewed the order, dated 17-12-1979 of Mr. M.R. Khalid, Commissioner, C.D.A. his predecessor and gave directions to the Deputy Commissioner, C.D.A. to proceed to compute compensation in accordance with guidelines given by him. The said order of Kh. Zaheer Ahmad was challenged in writ jurisdiction before .the Lahore High Court. The learned Judge, in Chambers in the impugned order held that Mr. M.R. Khalid, Commissioner, C.D.A. while determining compensation of land followed the judgment reported as Sardar Begum and others v. Capital Development Authority and others (PLD 1977 Lahore 1200) wherein guidelines for determination of fair compensation in terms of section 2(k) of the Ordinance were laid down and further potential value of land despite pegging of classification of land on 1-1-1968 can be attended to because pegging is only for compiling the average market value of 1954 to 1958 period has to be simply kept in view and is not attracted towards other directions as held in Muhammad "Yousaf and others v. Capital Development Authority and others (PLD 1976 SC 752) wherein this Court also observed as under:-- "This would be confined to such improvements etc. which purport to change classification of land for technical market value and is not to effect individual merits of a particular piece of land while remaining within and without affecting or altering its? relevant classification for acquisition of amount .as distinct from technical values as aforesaid." The learned Judge in Chambers observed that as Mr. M.R. Khalid the then Commissioner, C.D.A. determined the market value keeping in view the principle laid down by this Court and the High Court in the above-referred judgments with regard to award of compensation which decisions were binding upon C.D.A. It was further observed that the Deputy Commissioner, C.D.A. in his award dated 31-5-1981 considered the potential value of land as or the day of acquisition in assessing compensation but the Commissioner, C.D.A. Kh. Zaheer Ahmad did not consider the potential value of the land as on the day of acquisition in assessing compensation which compensation was unlawfully set aside by Kh. Zaheer Ahmad, Commissioner, C.D.A. A strange formula was evolved by the, said Commissioner with regard to the compensation of land which was not in accordance with the law and so also was against the principles of justice. It was also held by the learned Judge of the High Court that the order dated 17-12-1979 passed by the then Commissioner, C.D.A. was based on cogent reasons keeping in view the principles of land acquisition in the Ordinance and that none of the requisite conditions for review of order of his predecessor were available warranting review of the said order whereby compensation to the landowners was considerably reduced without considering relevant provision of law with regard to the determination of compensation. We find that there is no substance and merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant/C.D.A. The law governing the award of compensation for the land acquired to the owners by the appellant/C.D.A. requires that enquiry with regard to compensation is to be conducted in terms of section 28 of the Ordinance read with para.6 of Land Acquisition Regulation, 1961 considering (i) the true area of land, (ii) compensation in his opinion to be allowed, and (iii) apportionment of such compensation among the all persons whose land is acquired considering their claim and information collected and produced keeping in view the factors as contained in sections 30 and 3: of the Ordinance. The factors which are to be considered (i) would be market value of land, (ii) damage caused by reason of dispossession besides the value of the land so determined is to include 15 % per annum of such value in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition. It may be noted that in terms of section 31 of the said Ordinance factors mentioned therein are not to be ignored while determining compensation. Admittedly the land in question was acquired after first day of January, 1968 therefore the market value in terms of section 2(k)(ii) would be the aggregate of average market value as aforesaid with reference to its classification recorded in the Register of Haqdaran Zamin as in force on that day plus 25% of such value. This Court in case of Muhammad Yousaf and others v. Capital Development Authority and others (PLD 1976 SC 752) held that "while determining market value of the land any improvement made by landowners in the nature and condition of the land on or by the acquisition day would be taken note of in view of technical definition of the word market value in terms of section 2(k). This Court in the above-cited case observed at page 757 that while defining market value in terms of section 2(k) the Legislature has simply pegged up the average prices generally prevailing during the period 1954 to 1958 in respect of different kinds of land in general in the locality. There is nothing in the definition either express or necessary intendment to warrant the conclusion that this embargo against the award on account of any rise in level of prices was operative in any other direction as well as precluded the landowners from claiming compensation for the bona fide improvements effected in the quality of their lands acquired made during this period. In the instant case as the land in question was acquired after the first day of January, 1968 the market value would mean aggregate of average market value as aforesaid determined with reference to its classification recorded in the Register Haqdaran Zamin as in force on that day and 25% of such value (on the day of acquisition.) It would mean that the improvement made on the land so acquired till the acquisition date would be considered while assessing the compensation of the land in view of the said provisions and there was no prohibition to consider rise in level of prices because of the improvement made over the land till the day of acquisition. The word 'as aforesaid' has been held in the abovesaid authority would not warrant leaving out improvement and improved condition of land rather would lead to follow the same consideration, however, it may be noted that in terms of section. 2(k) (ii) of the said Ordinance market value is to be determined with reference to the classification recorded in the Register Haqdaran Zamin as in force on that day therefore the improvement and improved condition as to change of classification would not be taken into account but the improvements which relate to change of classification of land for technical definition of market value would not affect the individual merits of particular piece of land while remaining within and without effecting or altering its relevant classification for compiling compensation amount as distinct from the market value (PLD 1977 Lah. 1200 at page 1206). Aggregate of the average market value will have reference to the total of average price during year 1954 to 1958 period plus 25% over and above that while determining market value relevant transaction of the land acquired and of the similar land of neighborhood locality is also to be taken into consideration. The learned Judge in Chambers in case of Sardar Begum and others v. Capital Development Authority and others (PLD 1977 Lahore 1200) at page 1208 has observed:-- The market value in other words was just a base and start and not the end of process of compiling the compensation value. The argument seems to be correct. The wording of sections 28, 30 and 31 of the Ordinance fully bear it out but if support is needed reference may be made to the Supreme Court precedent where at page 757 it is written that after having ascertained the average market value, the Deputy Commissioner is then required to exercise his judicial mind and form his own judgment in awarding compensation for the acquired land in question before him. Section 28 does not lay down that having ascertained the average market value and collected the data as the basis, the Deputy Commissioner is left with no discretion. Indeed his real difficulty lies in the task in forming his opinion, in assessing the compensation for the acquired land in question with due regard to its relative merits and demerits and the data of the average price compiled by him. It was further observed at page 1209:-- "At this stage, learned counsel for the Capital Development Authority submitted that this construction of law will do violence to ate language of section 2(k)(ii) of the Ordinance and the concept of market value' as technically defined therein and will make the description and classification different from 1-1-1968 as the basis for determining the said 'market value' The contention has no merit. Firstly because what I have said above pertain to compensation amount' and not 'market value'. Secondly as observed by the Supreme Court pegging for example to section 2(k) (as it originally stood) was aimed at stopping 'rise in level of prices' and was not operative in any other direction as well'. While using the phrase 'not operative in any other direction as well' the Supreme Court did not tabulate ail the other possible directions which were thus excluded from pegging against 'rise in price level'. However, the two aspects which were separately excluded from the aforesaid pegging as noted by the Supreme Court were (a) the improvements in the classification and condition of land and (b) the principle of awarding compensation amount with reference to the value of the land on the acquisition day. By adding clause (ii) to section 2(k) such improvements which may change the classification of land may now be hit but despite the pegged classification the potential value of land was neither earlier excluded and nor is it even excluded from compilation of actual compensation amount. As regards the other aspect, namely, to fix compensation amount with respect to acquisition day so that it may reasonable be termed, considered or felt as real compensation there again the amended clause 2(k)(ii) does not operate in that direction and nowhere fixes any other date as the date for determining compensation amount though no doubt it does fix and retain the pegging period and classification-wise, but there is no indication to alter the acquisition day as the date compensation, which apart from being, otherwise a general still clearly ductile (deducible) from the overall provisions of the Ordinance under discussion as well." It was further observed "the time of awarding compensation must be construed as meaning the time of compensation, the time at which the right to compensation attaches". Concluding this aspect of discussion, therefore, I would hold that there is nothing in the technical definition of 'market value' in sections 2(k)(i) and 2(k)(ii) to hold that definition operates in altering the date of acquisition from being the date of assessing the compensation. If this is so then potential value of the land on the acquisition day cannot be ignored from consideration when the Deputy Commissioner is to make award of 'the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land, which suggests that he is not to ignore the merits and demerits of the particular land involved before him and is not to confine himself merely to the technical aggregate market value which, as already mentioned, is simply one of the material (and not the sole material) to be attended to." It will not be out of place to refer the case State of West Bengal v. Mrs. Bella Banerjee and others A I R 1954 SC 170 (F.B.) wherein in para. 8 it was observed:-- "Turning now to the provisions relating to compensation under the impugned Act, it will be seen that the latter part of the proviso to section 8 limits the amount of compensation so as not to exceed the market value of the land on December 31, 1946, no matter when the land is acquired. Considering that the impugned Act is a permanent enactment and lands may be acquired under it many years after it came into force, the fixing of the market value on December 31, 1946 as the ceiling on compensation, without reference to the value of the land at the time of the acquisition is arbitrary and cannot be regarded as due compliance in letter and spirit with the requirement of Article 31(2). The fixing of an anterior date for the ascertainment of value may not, in certain circumstances, be a violation of the Constitutional requirement as, for instance, when the proposed scheme of acquisition becomes known before it is launched and prices rise sharply in anticipation of the benefits to be derived under it, but the fixing of an anterior date, which might have no relation to the value of the land when it is acquired, may be many years later cannot but be regarded as arbitrary......Any principle for determining compensation which denies to the owner this increment in value cannot result in the ascertainment of the true equivalent of the land appropriated." In case of M. Salim Ullah and others v. Province of West Pakistan and (2) Land Acquisition Collector, Lyallpur and others (PLD.1960 (W.P.) Lahore 450) at page 458 it has been observed:-- "This being the true meaning of compensation, it is plain Act, by introducing a new definition of market value, has the effect of reducing it invariably by superseding the advantage of situation, so that in a case like the present one, the owners are 'compensated' with the payment of about one-tenth of the real market value. For we see no reason at present why the market value of the petitioner's land should have been fixed at Rs.1,625 per acre, while, at no great distance from them, though at a greater distance from the heart of the town, the National Silk and Rayon Mills should have paid Rs.16,245 per acre." In para. 25 at page 461 it was observed:-- "We are, therefore, inclined to the view that clause (b) of sub section (4-A) of section 299, Government of India Act, 1935, does not accommodate clause 10(3) of the Schedule appended to the Punjab Town Improvement (Amendment) Act (II of 1953), and that, consequently, compensation should be assessed in, the present case under the general provisions of the Land Acquisition Act." In case of Islamization of Law, in re: (PLD 1985 FSC 221) Full Bench comprising of four Judges of Federal Shariat Court observed at page 243: "market value must have relation to the value prevailing at the time of acquisition and not a notional value fixed in relation to the time when even the question of acquisition did not arise "At page 245 "we see no logic or reasoning behind this provision. The definition of market value as defined in section 2(k) of C.D.A. Ordinance is extremely arbitrary and must be repealed". After this decision, C.D.A. appealed against before this Court which appeals were allowed by Shariat Appellate Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 22nd May, 1985 and remanded the case to the Federal Shariat Court on account of omission by the Federal Shariat Court to give reasons by making reference to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah of Holy Prophet peace be upon him). After remand the Full Bench of the Federal Shariat Court disposed of the said matters after citing the relevant verses from the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah as per judgment reported in Syed Nazir Ali Shah and others v. The Capital Development Authority, Islamabad PLD 1992 FSC 361 against which judgment, C.D.A. has preferred appeal before this Court which is pending for disposal before this Court. The Federal Shariat Court in the above-cited case held "that section 2(k) of the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960, is extremely arbitrary for the reason that the 'market value' should have relation to the value prevailing at the time of acquisition and not any notional value fixed in relation to the time when even question of acquisition did not arise and the said provision of the said Ordinance was held to be repugnant to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah' and further held "that the value prevailing at the time of acquisition should be assessed with generosity in the purchase price, keeping in view the tradition of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him)", further "as a consequence of the above finding section 30(1) of the said Ordinance would have to be amended". However, in the instant case Mr. M.R. Khalid, Commissioner, C.D.A. has awarded compensation to the landowners in terms of sections 2-K, 30 and 31 and the guidelines in the said respect of this Court and that of Lahore High Court in the above-cited decisions., therefore, the same cannot be said to be in violation of the law liable to be interfered with in the review petition by Kh. Zaheer Ahmad, Commissioner, C.D.A. We have referred the above-cited decisions in order to show that the owners whose lands are acquired should be paid compensation which should be termed to be just and equitable keeping in view the consideration of the land at the time of acquisition on the basis of guidelines laid down by this Court and the Lahore High Court. The perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner in review jurisdiction would show that he has not cared to consider relevant provisions of law for assessment of market value and compensation to the landowners so also has not followed guidelines laid down by this Court and the High Court in the above-cited cases with regard to the law enunciated by this Court for the purpose of awarding compensation in respect of land acquired by the appellant/C.D.A. which decisions in fact were binding upon him in view of Article 189 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as the law laid down by this Court is binding upon all the Courts in the country. The responsibility of interpreting the law .of the land is of the superior Courts and law interpreted, by this Court is binding on all other Courts and on all functionaries of the Government and all other forums, considering same are guidance for all the Courts and Tribunals engaged in the process of administration of justice so as to keep them in limit an4 control the exercise of discretion to be exercised by them. It is the duty of I every authority whether judicial or otherwise to give effect to the law laid; down by this Court. On the contrary Kh. Zaheer Ahmad, Commissioner C.D.A. stated that the interpretation of the superior Courts would not be shared by him, which would amount to disobedience to the decisions of this Court -and he further stated that this Court has misinterpreted the law, therefore, it was mistake patent on the record thereby showed disrespect to the decisions of this Court and High Court and made the same as ground for review of the order of his predecessor which prima facie would amount to contempt of this Court warranting legal consequences, It would also appear that Kh. Zaheer Ahmad, Commissioner, C.D.A. did not take note of use of land on the date of acquisition nor considered the potential value in terms as said above nor the market value classification-wise. He also refused to consider and take notice of compensation granted earlier by the C.D.A. in v respect of the similar land in the same vicinity for the award of compensation considering that the said compensation was awarded earlier in time considering that the compensation normally increases after lapse of time rather than decrease, therefore, the order dated 11-10-1983 is based on misappreciation of the relevant material on record in terms of law for award of compensation of acquired land by the appellant which in fact was properly considered and appreciated by his predecessor in his order dated 17-12-1979. It could not be said in the circumstances that the market value and the compensation awarded by the then Commissioner in his order dated 17-12-1979 was not in accordance with the provisions of law and material on record consequently the High Court was justified in restoring the same after setting aside the order dated 11-10-1983 passed by Kh. Zaheer Ahmad, Commissioner, C.D.A. So far the next contention as discussed in the preceding paragraph there was neither discovery of new and important matter or evidence nor error apparent on the face of record nor any other sufficient cause for the exercise of review jurisdiction by the Commissioner Kh. Zaheer Ahmad warranting him to review the legal and proper order of his predecessor and thereby reducing the compensation which was rightly awarded to the landowners. In view of aforesaid discussion we find no merit in the contentions of the counsel for the appellant/C.D.A. consequently Civil Appeals Nos.475 to 477 of 1998 filed by the C.D.A. have no substance hence the same are dismissed whereas Civil Appeal No.478 of 1998 filed by Khuda Bakhsh and others is allowed with no order as to costs. Last but not least Kh. Zaheer Ahmad, Commissioner, C.D.A. at page 8 of his judgment has observed: It is, therefore, for this reason that the very meaning assigned and construction given to the above mentioned rulings of the superior Courts are not shared by this Court. Amongst other things this misinterpretation constitutes mistakes patent on the face of the record. The said observations made by the abovesaid Commissioner, C. D. A. constitute a contempt of this Court therefore, we order for issuance of notice to Kh. Zaheer Ahmad, former Commissioner, C.D.A. through the Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad for a date to be fixed in the month of November. 2001. as to why proceedings under Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan read with sections 3 and 4 of Contempt of Court Act, 1976 should not be initiated against him for showing his wilfull disobedience and disrespect to the dignity and decorum of this Court and High Court in violation of the said provisions. S.A.K./M.A.K./C-45/S Order accordingly.