' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---On 26-5-1979, compensation was granted to the affected people of villages Mohrian, Chatta Bakhtawar, Tamman and Majuhan because their properties were acquired by the C.D.A.. Two appeals were filed. One of the appeals was brought by the C.D.A. For reduction of the compensation while the other by the affectees for its enhancement. Mr. M.R. Khalid, the then Commissioner, C.D.A. Vide his orders dated 17-12-1979, 31-5-1981, 20-104982 and 28-5-1983, respectively, enhanced the compensation already granted to the property owners. Against this order, appeals were filed whereby the affectees prayed for enhancement of compensation. The C.D.A. Requested for the reduction of the compensation which had already been given to the affectees. The Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad exercising the powers under section 36 of the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 vide consolidated order dated 11-10-1983 reviewed the order passed by Mr. M.R. Khalid and reduced the compensation. Against this order, the affectees filed writ petitions which were allowed vide impugned judgment dated 21-11-1996. The High Court observed:-- "Respondent No,2 while exercising -powers on the application of respondent No,1 has lost sight of the fact that the requisite conditions for review of the order of his predecessor were not available to him. There was no material available on record for review of the order passed by Mr. M.R. Khalid, the then Commissioner, C.D.A., with respondent No,2 and under the garb of review, the compensation awarded to the affectees has been reduced ridiculously/low level. The impugned order has not been passed in conformity with the principles laid down for acquisition. Respondent No,2 has failed to take into consideration relevant provisions of law regarding determination of fair compensation.
The order passed by respondent No,2 is not in accordance with sections 2-K, 30 and 36 of the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960. The order passed by Mr. M.R. Khalid, the then Commissioner, C.D.A., wherein all the consideration and the principles for acquisition under C.D.A.
Ordinance were observed, has been erroneously set aside and in consequence whereof other orders passed by the C.D.A. In implementation of the order passed by Mr. M.R. Khalid, have also been declared illegal.
' In these circumstances, all the three writ petitions are accepted and the impugned order dated 11- 10-1983 passed by respondent No,2 is declared illegal and without lawful authority and consequential orders passed thereunder also stand vitiated. Resultantly, the order passed by Mr. M.R. Khalid on 17-12-1979 is restored alongwith consequential orders qua the petitioners including the award dated 31-5-1981 given by Malik Muhammad Ali, Deputy Commissioner, C.D.A."
' Against the impugned judgment, C.D.A. Has filed Civil Petitions Nos.166 to 168 of 1997. Similarly, Khuda Bux etc. Have filed Civil Petition No,387 of 1997. All these matters are being dealt with through this consolidated order.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the C.D.A. Submits that a finding of fact has been determined by the Commissioner, C.D.A. On the basis of evidence for the grant of compensation to the land owners. It could not, therefore, be interfered with because the Authority was competent to do so under sections 2-K, 30 and 36 of the C.D.A. Ordinance, 1960. He argues that there is no justification to grant inflated compensation to the respondents which is not warranted by the aforesaid provisions.
3. Mr. Gul Zarin Kiani, learned counsel for the respondents has controverted the argument by stating that the compensation was correctly assessed in accordance with law and as such, was rightly awarded to the land owners.
4. 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. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, granted.