2006 PLP 65 (CLC)

By this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the constitution of Pakistan, 1973, petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:-- "(1) To declare that the petitioner is legal and lawful allottee in respect of Plot No.SB-3, Sector 4-B measuring 401.85 sq. yds. situated at K.D.A. Scheme No.41 Surjani Town, Karachi. (2) To declare that the acts on the part of respondents whereby denying the allocation of said plot in favour of the petitioner and not accepting the balance amount in respect of said plot is illegal and mala fide. (3) To direct the respondents to transfer the said plot and issue the allotment order, possession order and site plan etc. in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said plot on receiving the balance amount of Rs.2,68,000. (4) To restrain the respondents to create third party interest in respect of said plot by allotting the same to any other party till the final decision/disposal of this petition. (5) To award the cost of this petition. (6) To grant any other relief(s) which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper keeping in view the circumstances of this petition.

2. Briefly stated, case of the petitioner is that in respect of Plot No.SB-3, Sector 4-B, measuring 401.85 sq. yds., K.D.A. Scheme No.41, Surjani Town; he was the highest bidder in the auction which was held by K.D.A. on 27-1-1993. As per terms of auction twenty-five per cent. of the bid money amounting to Rs. 1,33,113 was deposited by him on the same date, while second instalment of the same amount was deposited later on when such demand was made by the respondent. Further case of the petitioner is that when he approached the officials of K.D.A. for payment of remaining 50 per cent. sum of the auction price of the plot and submitted pay order in the sum of Rs.2,68,000 to the K.D.A. such pay order was retained by them for over one month and thereafter it was returned and he was illegally and dishonestly informed that his highest bid in respect of plot in question was not approved by the competent authority.

3. On service of notice, parawise comments have been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein they have taken firm stand that the bid-offered by the petitioners was never approved by the competent authorities and the documents relating to the intimation to the petitioner about acceptance of his bid seems to be managed through fraudulent means in connivance of the staff of the then K.D.A.

4. Be that as it may, from the assertions made in the petition and its reply submitted on behalf of the respondents, which is also accompanied with certain documents, it is evident that adjudication of the claim of the petitioner in respect of disputed plot will require thorough investigation into serious factual controversies involved in the matter. Obviously, writ jurisdiction is not the proper forum for this purpose (see 1968 SCMR 729, 2000 SCMR 718, 2001 SCMR 1493 and 2001 SCMR 1569.??

5. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition and approach the Civil Court to seek necessary reliefs against the respondents in respect of the plot subject-matter of this petition. Such submission of the learned counsel seems to be fair and reasonable. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Further, to provide fair opportunity to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court within some reasonable time and to ensure that in the meantime no third party interest is created over the disputed plot the respondents are directed to maintain status quo for a period of one month from the date of this order. H.B.T./A-262/K????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed as withdrawn.