' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.---Through this constitutional petition a grievance being raised by the petitioner who is an NGO is that land measuring 64 Kanals, 13 Marlas has been let out by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 for a period of 33 years on a throwaway lease amount.
Petitioner being an NGO in a representative capacity felt that it is neither in the interest of general public nor is in accordance with the mandate of law which governs trust properties.
2. Before learned counsel for the petitioner could open his case, preliminary objection has been taken by the learned counsel for the respondents that an alternate remedy by way of filing a suit under section 92, C.P.C. Is available to the petitioner.
3. In response to this argument, learned counsel for petitioner has referred 2004 CLC 599 (Naeem Ahmad v. Chief Administrator, Auqaf, Lahore and others) and 2003 YLR 3078 (Maulana Maqsood Anwar v. Chief Administrator Auqaf and others) to contend that in such-like situation constitutional jurisdiction was exercised by this Court and relief was granted.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Although in the ordinary course remedies provided by law are to be followed but in any case where this Court feels that ends of justice cannot be secured by adopting ordinary modes of remedies this Court can bypass the ordinary courses of action and grant relief to the effected/ aggrieved persons. Had it been a case that some public property/trust property had been negotiated with some individual, it could have been a case for interference by this Court in constitutional jurisdiction but in the instant case the land in dispute has been given by the Auqaf Department to the District Government on lease for the establishment of a public park. In these circumstances, prima facie, there does not appear to be any party benefiting out of this transaction. However, its legality/correctness could be adequately examined by the Civil Court if a suit is brought in terms of Section 92 of the C.P.C. In such circumstances, there being an adequate and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner I don't find any person to deviate from the same.
The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are on somewhat different footing, inasmuch as section 92 of the C.P.C. Was not under consideration in those judgments.
6. For what has been stated above, I find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.