1. MRS, YASMIN ABBASEY, J.---Grievance of petitioner, claiming-himself to be social worker, is that Taluka Council, Sukkur, is allowing construction of high-rise buildings and bungalows in Sukkur city illegally without any proper approval of plans from the competent authorities. Construction particularly being raised by respondent No,9 Arif Builders under the name of Sukkur Township Scheme has been challenged by the petitioner. According to him the scheme announced by respondents Nos. 9 to 15 does not have any approval of Government of Sindh and of the respective departments viz. Sindh Building Control Authority and Pakistan Environmental Institution.
2. ' It is alleged that as per site plan an area of 130 acres was allocated to Sukkur Township whereas in the title documents he owns only 63.39 acres and thus respondents Nos. 9 to 15 are illegally raising construction on the area beyond to their entitlement. The site plan possessed by respondents Nos.
3. 9 to 15 is bogus one an it does not have any approval of Taluka Council. No resolution was passed by Taluka Council nor any notificationhas been issued in that connection, as required under sections 9 and 10 of Sindh Town Planning Act.
4. ' Sukkur Township does not have any title document in his favour in spite of that builder is booking the bungalows being constructed under this scheme. Finally he prayed that illegal construction raised on Survey Nos. 7, 1016, 1023 to 1071, 971 to 973, 962 to 964, 575 and 874 of Deh Saeedabad Taluka New Sukkur be demolished.
5. ' Respondent No,9 besides the documents placed by him through statement, dated 28-3-2009, referring to a letter, dated 21-7-2006 argued that in fact Sukkur Township is a name of whole project of respondent No,9. The disputed land whereon they are raising bungalows is named as Indus Builders and the land has also been obtained by him under the name of Indus Builders which is apparent from the very document wherein is against to the disputed survey numbers name of Messrs Indus has been shown as owner. Though this letter creates a doubt stating that as there is no entry in Revenue Record titled as Sukkur Township and the concerned authority will be in a position to clarify whether the scheme titled as Sukkur Township has been sanctioned or not under relevant law nor has been clarified by respondent No,2 in his parawise comments admitting that grant of land in favour of respondent No,9 by Director Town Planning Development.
6. ' Record further reveals that a suo motu action was taken against different persons including respondent No,9 by Member (Land Utilization) Board of Revenue Sindh for allotment of land in their favour of certain survey numbers and by order, dated 1-11-2007 the grants of those survey numbers were cancelled in spite of allotments. This order was challenged by review petition and vide order, dated 29-11-2008, order, dated 1-11-2007 was set aside and it was observed that "it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the entries kept on the record of rights in favour of grantees were correct". Petitioner has objected to the order of 29-11-2008 arguing that the suo motu action was taken by Member (Land Utilization), Board of Revenue Sindh therefore, Member (Reform and Special Cell) has no jurisdiction to set it aside. To cover up this objection, order of Senior Member, Board of Revenue Sindh in Transfer Application No,50 of 2008 is reproduced for clarification that:- "The post of Member (Land Utilization) is lying vacant, Mr. Muhammad Ali Shah; Secretary (Land Utilization) is holding additional charge as Secretary to Government of Sindh, Land Utilization Department. He cannot hear the judicial cases during the period holding additional charge. The counsel; therefore, prayed the transfer of Review Applications Nos. 4 to 7 of 2008 to any other Member, Board of Revenue Sindh. I, therefore transfer above Revenue Petitions to the Member (Reform Wing and Special Cell), Board of Revenue Sindh for further adjudication as per law. He should hear all Revenue petitions at Camp Sukkur after observing all legal formalities."
7. ' In spite of this clarification petitioner insists that orders, dated 1-11-2007 are still intact and by letter, dated 23-5-2007 Mukhtiarkar (Revenue), New Sukkur had moved an application to District Officer (Revenue), Sukkur, for cancellation of entries of disputed land in Revenue Record against to the respective allottees. We regret to say that the order of 23-5-2007 is of prior in date to the order passed on 29-11-2008 and has no legal effect as entries in favour of respective allottees of disputed survey numbers were subsequently held legal.
8. ' According to learned counsel for the respondent No,9 after clarification of transfer of property in favour of respondent No,9 under the order of 29-11-2008 of Member (Reform Wing and Special Cell), Board of Revenue Sindh, now there remains no dispute as to the title of property in his favour.
9. So far as the construction to be raised thereon, letter of Director, Town Planning Department, Government of Sindh, Hyderabad, issued on 23-9-2006, No objection certificate by Civil Aviation Authority on 10-5-2006, No objection certificate granted by Taluka Municipal Administration, Sukkur on 23-8-2006 and No objection certificate issued by Town Planning Department on 16-10-2006, according to learned counsel for the respondent No,9 are sufficient proof of the fact that respondent No,9 is raising construction after acquiring approval from the, competent authorities in accordance with law. He further contended that the construction being raised by him is also in accordance to the approved plan and none of the authorities had ever objected to the construction being raised by him.
10. ' A letter, dated 25-3-2009 issued by Director, Town Planning Department addressed to Additional Advocate-General Sindh, Sukkur, in compliance of the order of this Court of 11-3-2009 has been placed on record along with the report submitted by Assistant Director and Draughtsman of Town Planning Department who has reported that the construction work raised on Survey No,7 and others measuring 177-10 acres of Sukkur Township at Sukkur, is found strictly as per approved layout plan and building (approved by Taluka Municipal Administration, New Sukkur) construction work of Bungalows, shops and flats are in progress as per Building laws.
11. ' In reply to arguments advanced by petitioner that the title documents in favour of respondent No,9 are fake and forged and need proper scrutiny, case of Revenue Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited and 8 others v. Mst. Bachoo and others (2001 SCM R 155) has been relied upon by Mr. Haider Imam Rizvi learned counsel for the respondent No,9 holding that question as to documents being forged cannot be decided by High Court in a constitutional petition as it needs proper enquiry and require evidence to be produced .By respective parties. Therefore, it is contended that if petitioner is aggrieved with the title documents, said to be issued in his favour, he may approach to civil Court for redress of his grievance.
12. ' Highlighting the conduct of petitioner of moving false and frivolous applications against different persons, observation made in Petition No, 40-K of 2003 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan have been referred wherein on this very petitioner Molvi Shazado Dreho, cost of Rs,25,000 imposed by High Court was reduced to Rs,5000 on sympathetic grounds by maintaining the order of High Court as to the conduct of petitioner and was observed that "although the matter was settled by High Court yet he (petitioner) continued to file applications one after another to gain chap popularity."
13. ' Petitioner again tried to challenge the status of respondent No,9 by referring a letter issued by NAB authorities to petitioner on 31-7-2008 arguing that the enquiry of illegal allotment of Government land in deh Saeedabad and Angoo Taluka New Sukkur to Indus Builders/Developers is still sub- judice before NAB Authorities; therefore, allotment in favour of respondents Nos. 9 and 10 needs reconsideration but according to learned counsel for the respondent No,9 this notice was also got issued by petitioner by moving an application before NAB Authorities as per his practice.. Therefore, a formal notice issued by NAB Authorities does not mean that the charge alleged has also been proved against the person.
14. ' Respondent No,3 in his parawise comments has supported case of respondent No,9 of raising construction after obtaining proper approval whereas rest of official respondents have shown their non-concern with the issues in the petition.
15. ' Upshot of above discussion is that construction raised by respondent No,9 is in accordance with law after obtaining proper approval from all concerned competent authorities. Petitioner in habit of filing petitions under the garb of social worker is not only burdening Court with false and frivolous litigation but is also a cause of nuisance to the person sued.
16. ' After conclusion of arguments on 8-4-2008 an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Was moved by one Bashir Ahmed as intervener claiming himself to be owner of Survey No,575 of deh Saeedabad which is subject matter of this petition, alleging that respondent No,9 in collusion with Revenue Authorities and Taluka Municipal Administration fraudulently got it transferred in his name and is extorting money by holding premises being constructed by them.
17. At the last stage even if it is assumed that intervener's case has some strength therein, then also extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution can be invoked only to meet extraordinary situation. Factual controversy with alleged mala fides on part of respondent No,9 and Revenue Authorities and Taluka Municipal Administration cannot be investigated and undertaken by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Government of Punjab v. Crescent Textile Mills Ltd. (PLD 2004 SC 108) and Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq (2006 SCM R 276) can be looked into observing that:-- "In case the contents of the writ petition and parawise comments along with the aforesaid facts mentioned in chronological order are put in juxtaposition then it brings the case of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in the area of disputed questions of fact. It is a settled proposition of law that High Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed question of fact in constitutional jurisdiction as the law laid down by this Court in the following judgments:--
(i) Muhammad Saeed Azhar v. Marital Law Administrator Punjab and others 1979 SCM R 484; (ii)
18. Umar Hayat Khan v. Inayatullah Butt and others 1994 SCM R 572; (iii) Mst. Kaniz Fatima through Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Salim 2001 SCM R 1493; (iv) Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Forest Department, Punjab, Lahore though Division Forest Officer v. Ghulam Nabi and 3 others PLD 2001 SC 415; (v) Wazir Ali Soomro v. Water and Power Development Authority and others 2005 SCM R 37."
19. ' To entertain an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. In petition questioning the construction being raised on demised premises without having proper sanction, it was observed in Pakistan Banking Council v. Ali Mohtaram Naqvi (1985 SCM R 714) that:- "No party can be allowed to argue that as the Court has a wide discretion in the matter of the joinder of parties, any person who is neither a necessary nor a proper party may be joined at the convenience of the applicant. In exercising their powers under this rule, Courts ought to see that they do not load the record with parties wholly shown to have no interest in the suit and that the trial of the suit is not embarrassed by the simultaneous investigation of totally unconnected controversies."
20. It appears that when petitioner finds himself on weaker side, he sets up the intervener with ulterior purpose to keep this litigation alive, otherwise if intervener would had any interest in the property, no reason has been assigned by him that why he waited for such long time for seeking relief.
21. In view of foregoing reasons both petition as well as application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Are dismissed in limine, along with the listed applications.