Syeda NASREEN ZOHRA (Deseased) vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, through Secretary Communication and Works Department,

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Syeda NASREEN ZOHRA (Deseased) VS GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, through Secretary Communication and Works Department, Lahore arts.175E(3), 184(3) [omitted by the Constitution (Twenty-Seventh amendment) act (XXIII of 2025)] & 188---Review petition---Petitioner sought consideration of petition as curative review to reopen final judgment of the Supreme Court---Legality---Challenge to earlier Supreme Court judgment---Exhaustion of remedies---appeal and review having already been decided---Brief facts were that the petitioners filed a review petition under article 188 of the Constitution seeking review of the Supreme Court's order whereby their appeal against office objections was dismissed, arising out of a petition filed under article 184(3) challenging earlier Supreme Court judgments relating to land acquisition compensation; the matter had already gone through appeals and review proceedings before the Supreme Court, and the office had objected to the maintainability of invoking article 184(3) on the ground that it did not involve a question of public importance or enforcement of fundamental rights and pertained to an individual grievance---Primary question for determination before the Federal Constitutional Court was "whether the review petition challenging the previous judgement of the Supreme Court under article 184(3) of the Constitution (as it was before the 27th amendment, and now article 175E(3)) was maintainable?"---Held: Petitioners having availed the remedy of appeal before the Supreme Court and thereafter the constitutional remedy of review under article 188 (which was dismissed), invoked article 184(3)---The attempt was, in substance, to challenge a final judicial determination rendered by the apex Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction---The constitutional scheme, however, did not contemplatea horizontal appeal against a final judgment of the Supreme Court through invocation of its original jurisdiction---article 188 of the Constitution expressly provided for review of judgments of the Supreme Court, subject to law and rules framed by the Court---The presence of the review mechanism indicated that the Constitution recognized only a limited corrective jurisdiction after final adjudication---Nothing in article 175E(3) suggested that the Federal Constitutional Court was vested with a supervisory, review or appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in appeal and affirmed in review---It was equally significant that the dispute at hand concerned compensation arising out of land acquisition proceedings---The matter had traversed the entire judicial hierarchy, including two rounds of appeals before the Supreme Court and a petition filed under article 184(3)---The grievance articulated was not one that implicated enforcement of fundamental rights of the public at large; rather, it was a continuation of a private dispute between legal representatives of a landowner and the Provincial Government---The invocation of review petition against an order sustaining the office objection while dismissing C.M.appeal which held that petition filed under article 184(3) was not competent, therefore, appeared to be an attempt by the petitioner to reopen a concluded controversy under the guise of constitutional enforcement---Present review petition was not maintainable against an order whereby C.M. appeal was dismissed, hence, present review petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Syeda NASREEN ZOHRA (Deseased) vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, through Secretary Communication and Works Department, Lahore arts — 2026 PLD 103 FEDERAL-CONSTITUTIONAL-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD