1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-- This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Sind High Court dated 18th January, 1982 dismissing Letters Patent Appeal filed by the petitioner and thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by a learned Single Judge of that Court by which petitioner's suit against respondents was dismissed. Facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the suit briefly narrated are as under: ' By an agreement dated 26th March, 1962 petitioner agreed to purchase from West Pakistan Road Transport Corporation predecessor of respondent No. 1, 10 acres of land bearing No, 427 Deh Mehran Malir, Karachi for Rs, 66,300 and paid Rs, 10,000 as earnest money. Later, on 9th March, 1963 petitioner paid the balance of Rs, 56,300 but finally the respondent returned the amount of consideration under letter dated 12th October, 1965, relevant portion whereof reads as under: "You are aware of the fact that the Deputy Commissioner, Karachi did not grant permission for the sale of the land in question to you as it was granted to the Road Transport Corporation for public utility purpose at a very low rate. He required the Corporation to use the land for the purpose for which it was sanctioned to them. Against this order you went in an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Karachi. On the 6th October, 1965, the Commissioner, Karachi rejected your appeal and announced the judgment in the presence of both the parties. Since the Road Transport Corporation is not able to sell the land in question, a cheque No,A669436, dated 11th October, 1965, amounting to Rs, 66,300 being the cost paid by you to us is sent herewith which may kindly be acknowledged."
2. ' Petitioner challenged the order of Commissioner, Karachi dated 6th October, 1965 in revision before the Board of Revenue but it was dismissed. He then filed a suit for specific performance of the contract and in the alternate claimed Rs, 3,25,000 as damages.
3. ' The trial Judge dismissed the suit by the judgment dated 26th July, 1969 and Letters Patent Appeal filed by appellant was also dismissed. The relevant portion of the judgment for the purpose of points raised in support of this petition may be usefully reproduced. It reads: "It is established that the land in dispute was granted to the predecessor of the respondent No. 1 for a specific purpose and that it was the exclusive jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner as well as the Revenue authorities to refuse the transfer of such land to the appellants. The disputed land was granted to the Road Transport Corporation for public utility service and the claim of the appellants has been enquired into at all stages and it has, therefore, rightly been urged that the suit does not lie in view of the subsection (3) of the section 37 of the Sind Land Revenue Code. It is clear that the conduct of sale was void ab initio and no agreement of sale could have been entered into between the appellants and respondent No. 1 for the reasons recorded earlier. The land in dispute was clearly assigned to respondent No,1 and the permission to them to use the land was clearly in law for a particular common purpose. There is also no justification for the contention that the grant was made in perpetuity. Since the sale was ab initio void the rules 42 and 43 of the Land Revenue Rules are not attracted."
4. ' Mr. S.M. Sadiq learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts have erred in taking the view that the suit land was granted to respondent No,1 for public utility service there being no proof on record to that effect.
5. After having gone through the record of the case we find no merit in the plea raised by the learned counsel, for, the High Court has held on the basis of evidence proved in the case that the suit property was granted to the first respondent for the purpose of public utility, such as for the specific purpose of constructing garages, workshop etc., and since property was no longer required for the aforesaid purposes, it was to revert to the Government, and the contract between the parties was thus not enforceable in law.
6. ' There is therefore no merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.