Find a Lawyer

CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SUB. FAQIR SHAH

Capital Development Authority Ordinance 1960 Section 2 (k), 30, 31 and 36 Land Acquisition Regulation, 1961, Regulation 6 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts 185 (3), 189 and 199 Constitutional Compensation Assessment Predictability Order The Commissioner could be awarded fair and reasonable compensation to the property owners, but the Commissioner did not consider the market value and the relevant provisions of the law for the assessment of compensation, nor was it bound by the Supreme Court and the High Court. Had followed the instructions of Article 189 of the Constitution, neither the theory nor the use of the land on the date of acquisition has been noted, nor is its rationality nor market value classification nor any similar land in the same area. In connection with this, the prior payment by the authority is considered. In the terms of section 2 (k), 30 and 31 of the Ordinance, the directive of the Commissioner and the Supreme Court and the High Court cannot be said to be a violation of the law in which the successor to the jurisdiction of the review I may be interrupted, the successor commissioner, in the absence of a new and important case being investigated, may show proof or error on the face or there may be no other cause. Reviewing the legal and proper order of his predecessor, the Supreme Court dismissed the authority's appeal, stating that the High Court was rejecting the order of the advance commissioner after rejecting the order of his successor. immigration advocates contact from Sangote lawyer