1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J-After a round of litigation up to the level of Lahore High Court, petitioners, for the second time, filed Writ Petition No. 192 of 1981 in the High Court seeking to challenge the amount of compensation awarded to them for the acquisition of their land in village Bar Khanzada under the Capital Development Ordinance, 1960. On remand of the case by the High Court by the earlier judgment, the Deputy Collector (Capital Development Authority) made a fresh award by the order dated 24th July, 1977. This order was upheld by the Commissioner (Capital Development Authority) with the modification, however, that he awarded 25 increase in the compensation amount, but otherwise dismissed petitioners' appeal. These orders were then challenged by the petitioners in the subsequent Writ Petition No. 192 of 1981 which was, however, dis--missed by the High Court for the reason that the assessment of market value primarily being a question of fact and the Tribunals having given cogent reasons for discarding petitioners' claim for higher rates of compensation, interference in constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court was not justified.
2. Maulvi Siraj-ul-Haq, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that the compensation awarded to the petitioners is based on the assessment of land in village Haida Haleem, which itself rests on the award of compensation in respect of lands in village Chahan, and since the compensation for all classifications of land in village Chahan was later on fixed at higher rates, the petitioners are also entitled to the same rates.
3. This plea has been rejected by the High Court on the ground that "it has been maintained by the Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 24th July 1977 that village Chahan is situated at a distance of 3-4 miles from village Bar Khanzada and its land being nearer to urban area of Rawalpindi is more valuable and, therefore, the compensation assessed for village Chahan cannot be awarded to the petitioners".
4. The findings of the Deputy Commissioner were upheld by the Commis--sioner, and the High Court, therefore, very rightly, refused to interfere on the ground that the impugned orders had been lawfully passed within the scope of jurisdiction vested in the Tribunals.
5. The petition is dismissed in limine.