' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.--- The petitioner namely Messrs Ahmad Developers impugns the order of the High Court dated 29-5-2008 passed in Constitutional Petition No,D-1645 of 2007. The said order in its entirety reads as under:--- "29-5-2008. Mr. Zakir Hussain Khashkhel, Advocate for the petitioner ' Learned counsel for the petitioner states at the bar that the petitioner is awarded the relief as prayed for in the petition and, therefore, the same is no more pressed into service. The petition is disposed of along with the listed applications."
2. Constitutional Petition No,1645 of 2007 in which the above order was passed, had been filed by Muhammad Saleh, respondent No, 1 . Since the said petition was not pressed, the High Court was fully justified in disposing of the same. The subject-matter of the petition was land measuring four acres which was allotted to the respondent, Muhammad Saleh by the Land Utilization Department, Government of Sindh vide order dated 20-9-1994. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the said respondent had agreed to sell the land to the petitioner vide agreement dated 18-12-1994.
The allotment in favour of the respondent was, however, cancelled under the Sindh Government Lands (Cancellation of Allotments, Conversions and Exchanges) Ordinance, 2001. Thereafter, an application was made to the Land Utilization Department for regularization of the aforesaid allotment. This application was also made on behalf of respondent No,1 and we have nothing on record to show that the Land Utilization Department had acknowledged the petitioner as having any rights in the land in dispute.
3. The case pleaded on behalf of the petitioner can be stated very briefly. According to learned counsel, the respondent No,1 could not have been allowed to withdraw his Constitutional Petition. It appears, this submission is misconceived, for reasons considered below, apart from the fact that the entire case of the petitioner is based on contractual rights allegedly created in its favour under the agreement to sell dated 18-12-1994 referred to above. The fact that the respondent alone was vested with legal rights under the Ordinance mentioned above is acknowledged even in the present petition. This much is evident from the fact that all actions under the said Ordinance were taken in the name of respondent No,
1. We further note that the Constitutional Petition was not withdrawn. The impugned order shows that there was no further need to press it, as the relief which was being sought by means of the petition had been allowed by the Sindh Government.
4. The petitioner has placed reliance on the case titled Javaid Iqbal Abbasi and Co. v. Province of Punjab 1996 SCMR 1433, which we have examined. The cited precedent is clearly distinguishable on facts and the ratio therein is not attracted in the circumstances which have given rise to this case.
The most relevant and obvious point of distinction is that the writ petitioner in the precedent case sought unconditional withdrawal of his petition because he was no more interested in getting the relief prayed for. The present C.P.L.A. Arises from facts which are contrary to the facts noted in the cited authority. As noted above, the respondent Muhammad Saleh who was the petitioner before the High Court, had been granted relief by the Sindh Government through regularization of the allotment in favour of the said respondent. In the circumstances, it would have been pointless to press the petition any more. The cited precedent, therefore, does not advance the case of the petitioner.
5. There is another aspect of this case. The contents of the Constitutional Petition filed by respondent No,1 raised serious factual controversies between the petitioner (who was respondent No,8 before the High Court) and respondent No,1 who had filed C.P.No,D-1645 of 2007. Clause (c) of the prayer in the Constitutional Petition is instructive in this behalf. An order was prayed for, inter alia:-- "(c) to direct the respondents Nos.1 to 3 and 7 to take the legal action as per law, against the respondent No,8, who has committed the forgery by managed bogus NI Card of the petitioner as well as forged General Power of Attorney to usurp the property of the petitioner."
6. In the above circumstances, it is clear that the rights being asserted by the petitioner against respondent No,1 on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 18-12-1994 are contested by respondent No,
1. It would be for the petitioner to firstly establish his contractual rights against respondent No,1 and only thereafter could it have a claim against the said respondent for committing breach of the agreement to sell. This contest on the factual plane could only have been determined through a civil suit and not in constitutional jurisdiction, particularly as the Sindh Province was not privy to the said agreement or to any dealings with the petitioner.
7. We have also noted from the contents of this petition that the petitioner itself has levelled allegations of fraud and misrepresentation against respondent No,
1. It has also alleged connivance of "concerned authorities in disposing/transferring the said land of the petitioner." We have not found any basis on the record for the said allegations and in particular, the averment as to connivance. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner made the extraordinary submission that the petition before the High Court was fictitious. If this indeed is the case, then the petitioner before us would be worse off for want of standing because in such event it would not be possible to hold that a petition was ever filed in the High Court. We do not see how this would help the petitioner.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.