' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.--- The respondent No,2 is the owner of the disputed property, it negotiated and finalized the sale of the same with the respondent No,4 for consideration of Rs,17,39,00,000 (Rupees seventeen crore thirty-nine hundred thousand only). This sale has been challenged by filing the instant petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the auction price of Rs,17,39,00,000 (Rupees seventeen crore thirty-nine hundred thousand, only) is much less than the market price, therefore, a loss to public exchequer would occur if the said sale is permitted to be carried out. The learned counsel submitted that the actual value of the property is not less than 51,00,00,000 (Rupees fifty-one crore only). In these circumstances he prayed for annulment and setting aside of the agreement inter se the respondents Nos.2 and 4.
3. The respondents Nos.1 to 3 filed parawise comments and objected to the maintainability of the instant petition. They also categorically stated that no irregularity has been committed, the matter was finalized through auction and optimum price of land has been fetched. Even otherwise the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition.
4. This petition came up for hearing on 29-1-2008, the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to obtain instructions from the petitioner as to whether he was willing to pay a price of Rs,51,00,00,000 (Rupees fifty-one crore only) for the disputed land or not as suggested by him.
Today the learned counsel has submitted that they assess the price at around Rs,21,00,00,000 (Rupees twenty-one crore only), however, he cannot make a definite offer in the absence of his client. Therefore, from the statement of the counsel it is clear that the petitioner has drastically reduced the figure from Rs,51,00,00,000 (Rupees fifty-one crore only) to Rs,21,00,00,000 (Rupees twenty-one crore only). This in itself is a clear indication that the petitioner merely wants to delay the proceedings and nothing else.
5. On merits it is clear that the property in dispute was sold through auction, the respondent No,2 has purchased it. Whether the value of the property is Rs,21,00,00,000 (Rupees twenty-one crore only) or Rs,17,00,00,000 (Rupees seventeen crore only) is a pure question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in the present jurisdiction. Therefore, this petition is not maintainable and is hence dismissed.