1. MUSHIR ALAM, CJ. -- 1. Urgently granted.
2. 2 to 4. Petitioner Abdul Mannan jmerely seeks directions for issuance of NOC. Facts given in the petition appears to be that petitioner was held Special Power-of attorney of one Muhammad Khaskhali in respect of land survey No. 26, Deh Rehri, Taluka Karachi situated at All Mohammad Khaskheli Goth measuring 40-acres. It is the claim of the petitioner that 359 families were residing since 1987 and said settlement was demolished by the authority in the year 2002. No steps to protect the purported right and/or interest for any of the settlers were initiated. It is further pleaded that first representation was made on 18.12.2010 and thereafter has approached this Court for NOC.
3. We have examined the Power-of-attorney and purported sale agreement, available at page-91 of the file, the said All Mohammad Khaskheli has not shown in the purported sale agreement dated 17.02.1997 as to any right, title and interest over the subject piece of land.
4. Learned counsel for Respondents No.2 & 3 has disputed locus standi of the petitioner to agitate such claim. Even otherwise, according to him, no relief in respect of the subject land was claimed.
5. Such facts are also supported by the learned AAG and Mr. lqbal Khurram, counsel for BOR.
6. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that villagers may be given relief and/or All Muhammad Khaskheli, there is nothing on record to show that villagers had any right and/or they were ever acknowledged, therefore, they are also not before the Court. Petitioner cannot simply seek NOC without satisfying the Court as to the availability of any right that could be enforced in writ jurisdiction.
7. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 & 3 has placed reliance on the case of Faiz Baksh & others v.
8. Deputy Commissioner Land Acquisition Officer, Bahawalpur reported in 2006 SCM R 219. Petitioner has miserably failed to make out any case in his favour, therefore, we do not see any reason to give any indulgence to such petition. Accordingly petition is dismissed alongwith CMA 1690/2013 and 1691/2013.