2003 PLP 427 (YLR)

‑‑‑‑Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ Disputed question of fact‑‑‑Contractual liability‑‑‑Grievance of the petitioner was that although the authorities agreed to confer proprietary rights of disputed shop to the petitioner yet the price demanded by them was exorbitant‑‑‑Authorities produced a document allegedly thumb‑marked by the petitioner whereby the price demanded by the Authorities had been agreed to by the petitioner‑‑‑Petitioner denied execution of such document‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑In view of conflicting and counter‑assertions of the parties about the execution of the document, it had become a controversial and disputed question of fact which could only be resolved after thorough prove and inquiry into the matter‑‑‑Such exercise was beyond the pale of jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution, therefore, remedy for the petitioner for settling such controversy falling within the factual realm was elsewhere‑‑‑Petitioner had agreed for the grant of proprietary rights through private treaty and he alongwith others agreed to the price, thus the same gave rise to a contractual arrangement between the parties and in any case invocation of Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court was not the remedy that could be resorted to by the petitioner‑‑ Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Shaukat Haroon for Petitioner. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondent. A shop situated in Committee Bazar, Toba Tek Sindh is in occupation of the petitioner as lessee, who statedly has continuously been paying rent to the Municipality. It is the case of the petitioner that he alongwith others applied to the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore for the conferment of proprietary rights through private treaty, which matter was processed and his case was recommended for the grant of proprietary rights by the officials in the hierarchy the matter, however, statedly remained pending when the petitioner had to file Writ Petition No. 13230 of 1996, which was withdrawn on 30‑7‑1996, "with the option to the petitioners to revert to this Court, in case there is a .cause of action". It is now notice, dated 25‑7‑2002 whereby the petitioner has been called upon to pay the price through instalments (the break‑up of which is given in the said notice) which has been challenged through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

2. In view of the grievance of the petitioner that an exorbitant and excessive price was being claimed from him, which was unfair, the learned Law Officer was called upon to seek instructions in the matter. On 18‑10‑2002 the learned Additional Advocate‑General appeared in Court and filed parawise comments appended therewith was a joint affidavit executed by the petitioner (at Serial No.2) and others that price was settled by agreement. This document bears the thumb‑impression against the name of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner on that date sought an adjournment in order to seek instructions from the petitioner. The petitioner is present in Court today alongwith his learned counsel. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner never executed any such document nor put his thumb‑impression as is claimed by the respondents.

3. Whereas the document referred to by the learned Additional Advocate‑General statedly was executed by the petitioner, its execution is vehemently denied by the petitioner. In view of the conflicting and counter‑assertions of the parties abut the execution of the document, it has become an extremely a controversial and disputed question of fact, which can only be resolved after thorough probe and enquiry into the matter. Such exercise is beyond the pale of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Remedy for the petitioner for settling such a controversy falling within the factual realm lies elsewhere. It may be observed that as per the stance of the respondents, the petitioner had agreed for the grant of proprietary rights through private treaty and he alongwith others agreed to the price in view of the location/situation of the site and its business worthiness. It thus gave rise to a contractual arrangement between the parties and in any case invocation of writ jurisdiction of this Court is not the remedy that can be resorted to by the petitioner. In the circumstances stated above, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑1548/L