1. ' Petitioner Qamaruddin Arain son of Nanha has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, for seeking following reliefs:- "(a) To declare the notice, dated 8-5-2008 is illegal, mala fide, ultra vires and to be withdrawn by respondents which was issued with mala fide intention violating the clauses of local contract of Landhi land, dated 1-7-2007.
(b) The respondents further be restrained from demolishing evicting removing ripe crop, standing on 184 acres Army Landhi land, Karachi, tube well, tractors, electric machines etc. And creating third party interest till the final disposal of the petition.
(c) Cost of the proceedings may also be awarded.
(d) Any other relief this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper as per the circumstances of the petition."
2. ' In a nutshell, case of the petitioner is'that he is an agriculturalist and had obtained possession of 184 acres of Army land in the year, 1992 for cultivation purpose upon payment of Rs,75,000 per year.
3. On seeing the efforts made by the petitioner for development of land different contracts of land were executed, which continued between the parties on yearly basis, and last agreement to this effect was executed on 1-7-2007 on the following terms:-- "Where the said r AA&QMG agree to grant the right under specified the Landhi Land contractor agree to undertake the-management of contract upto 30th June, 2008 for agriculture purpose (1st July, 2007 to 30th Jun, 2008).
4. ' The contract may be extended at the discretion of the contractor. The AA&QMG may however terminate the contract without notice, otherwise, three months notice (i,e, 90 days) on either side will be given. The agreement will be automatically terminated for any of the following:-.
(a) On order from higher authorities.
(b) If contractors is found insolent.
(c) If there is breach of the conditions contained herein.
(2) The contractor is liable to pay all rent, electric and water charges if any and bill on this account will be cleared within seven days on receipt.
(3) The contract be concluded with the said contractor for (one year). The contract will be renewed every year.
(a) Total rent from 1st July, 2007 to 30th June, 2008 will be Ri.5,03,800 Schedule of payment is as follow:--
(1) Total Rent Rs.5,03,800
(2) 1st July, 2007 Rs,2,20,000
(3) 5th March, 2008Rs.1,43,000
(4) 5th June, 2008Rs,1,40,800
(4) Water arrangement has been made by the contractor Mr. Qamaruddin. If the contract is given to some other contractor, the payment will be made by the new contractor for above arrangements. The assessm ent will be made by the rep of the contractor and a member of HQ Corps Res 5 Corps, 184 Acres land will be utilized by Mr. Qamaruddin for agriculture purpose."
5. ' Further case of the petitioner is that on 6th June, 2008 when he paid third installment in terms of the last contract (ibid), he was served with the notice, dated 8th May, 2008, intimating him that on expiry of contract period on 30th June, 2008, it will not be renewed. According to the petitioner, since he has made huge investments over the development of this land in the last 16 years, therefore, he cannot be thrown out of the land at the whims of the respondents.
6. ' On notice of this petition, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No,3, wherein it has been disclosed that after termination of contract period in terms of the agreement, the petitioner has no right to retain the possession of land. Further, it has been stated that the value of the tube well and sewerage tanks developed by the petitioner has been assessed by an independent Engineer at Rs,2,96,000, but as a matter of grace, it has been decided that the new contractor will pay Rs,3,96,000 for the same and in case the petitioner is not agreeable for this amount, he will be at liberty to remove the same. According to respondents, all this has been done in terms of clause 4 of the agreement and, therefore, no illegality or breach of contract, dated 1st July, 2007 has been committed by the official respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
7. ' Mr. Amir Raza Naqvi, DAG, representing Federation of Pakistan, has contended that the present petition is not maintainable in law for the short reason that the questions relating to the breach of the terms of contract vis-a-vis damages or its performance cannot be enforced through writ jurisdiction, as the proper remedy in such matters is before the civil Court.
8. ' We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material placed on record.
9. ' There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner had first obtained possession of the agricultural land admeasuring 184 acres from respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in the year, 1992 and since thereafter he is in possession on the basis of different local contracts of Landhi land, (agreements executed between the parties from time to time), and the last agreement contained the terms as reproduced above. It is specifically mentioned in the agreement that the management of contract for agricultural purposes, executed in favour of the petitioner, was only up to 30th June, 2008 and even during the subsistence of contract the AA & P. QMG had the authority to terminate such contract without notice or otherwise three months notice on either side was to be given. The said agreement further contemplates that the agreement will automatically terminate on orders from higher authorities; if contractor is found insolvent; if there is breach of conditions contained therein.
10. Such terms contained in the agreement clearly demonstrate the intention of the parties that the petitioner was retained as contractor for the management of agricultural land on yearly basis at the discretion of respondents Nos.2 and 3. It is, therefore, obvious that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were within their rights in serving the notice, dated 8th May, 2008, and on expiry of the contract period on 30th June, 2008, the petitioner has lost his legal claim over the land except as contemplated in clause 4 of the agreement, dated 1-7-2007, for which already an offer has been made to him by the respondents as per para. 4 of the counter affidavit, dated 6-8-2008. Besides, if the petitioner has any other claim against the respondents for commission of breach of the terms of contract or for the loss suffered by him, such factual controversies emanating from the terms of the contract, cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.
11. Rather, it will be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the civil Court for such reliefs, if he can succeed to establish his claim against the respondents.
12. ' Foregoing are the reasons for our short order, dated 3-9-2008, whereby this petition was dismissed in limine.