ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR, J. The instant writ petition is arising out of orders dated 25.10.1999 and 21.03.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner C.D.A, Islamabad, wher eby the review petition seeking correction of Award dated 31.01.1989, filed by the petitioners, was dismissed being time barred while appeal met the same fate.
2. Precisely , relevant facts are that the land of Mauza Sehan, Tehsil & District Islamabad was acquired by the respondent-CDA through Award dated 26.05.1969, modified on 03.07.1972 and announced on 31.01.1989. The petitioner filed review petition on 25.10.1994, which was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner , CDA vide order dated 25.10.1999 by observing that the petition is hit by the provision of Section 36(3) of CDA Ordinance, 1960 which mentioned five years as the maximum time for filing of a review petition against an Award from the date of its announcement.
3. The petitioner , then preferred an appeal against the order dated 25.10.1999 which was dismissed by the Commissioner CDA, Islamabad vide order dated 21.03.2013 by observing that:- "I have heard the arguments and gone through the record carefully . The award that is being challenged was announced on 31.1.1989. The appellant has not been able to substantiate his claim pertaining to his ignorance of award. He had admitted that he has land holding in Mauza where the acquisition took place by CDA, whereas mere assertion that the appellants are resident of nearby Mauza i.e. Tarlai Kalan was not sufficient ground unless established without some concrete reasoning." {Emphasis supplied}
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the procedure envisaged in Section 27 of the CDA Ordinance, 1960 was not followed before announcement of the Award; that the land of the petitioners having the character of "Nehri" was treated as "Maira" while alike review petition filed by one Aurangzeb Shah and others was acceded to but the petitioners have been deprived of their vested rights and treated with discrimination. Learned counsel further asserted that law favours adjudica tion on merits instead of technical knockout, therefore, impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-CDA repelled the above submissions by placing reliance upon case of "Muhammad Ramzan v. Muhammad Qasim" (2011 SCMR 249) and judgment dated 10.07.2021 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2642 of 2021, titled "Capital Development Authority through Chairman v. Ghulam Murtaza & others".
6. Heard, record perused.
7. In the cases of "Capital Development Authority throug h Chairman v. Ghulam Murtaza & others", (supra), the question of law and facts are akin to one contained in the instant writ petition as in the referred Writ Petition, the orders dismissing review petition and appeal on the ground of limitation were assailed. Paragraph 5 of the judgment ibid is significant wherein it had been observed that:- "5. It has been held by the august Supreme Court that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908 are mandatory and for purposes of limitation no special allowance can be made for a government department either . In this regard reliance is placed on Habibullah Khan Vs. Muhammad Ishaq (PLD 1966 SC 505, Inam Naqsh band Vs. Haji Shaikh Ijaz Ahmad (PLD 1995 SC 394), Haji Abdul Karim and others Vs. Messrs. Flordia Builders (Pvt) Ltd.
(PLD 2012 SC 247), Muhammad Ramzan vs. Muhammad Qasim (2011 SCMR 249), Commissioner Income Tax, Lahore Zone Vs Rais Pir Ahmed Khan (PLJ 1981 Supreme Court 212), Accountant General, Punjab Lahore and another Vs. Ch. Qadir Bukhsh and another (PLJ 1983 Lahore 184), and Feroze Bibi Vs. Settlement Commissioner (Land) and another ( 1988 SCMR 1228 )."
8. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the subject award was announced in the year 1989 while the petitioners filed review petition in October 1994 i.e. with a delay of about five years.
9. The justification of having land in contiguous Mauza of Tarlai Kalan was also not considered sufficient for want of concrete reasoning, therefore, in the attendance circumstances, there exists no justification to condone inordinate delay as after expiry of the limitation period a right vests in the party in whose favour the order had been passed and thus such right cannot be taken away except in accordance with law .
10. In view of above, by following the wisdom laid down in the case of "Capital Development Authority through Chairman v . Ghulam Murtaza & others" (supra), instant writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed .