Order Sheet

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH KARACHI

Constitutional Petition No. D – 3235 of 2015

Date	Order with signature of Judge

Before :

Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar

Mr. Justice Abdul Rasool Memon

Petitioner : Mr. Hafeez-ur-Rehman Khattak Advocate,

in person.

Respondent No.1 : Government of Sindh through Ministry of Housing &

Town Planning, called absent.

Respondents 2 & 4 : Project Director and Director General,

Malir Development Authority,

through Mr. Iqbal Khurram Advocate.

Respondent No.3 : Deputy Director, Land Management, Karachi,

called absent.

Date of hearing : 07.09.2016.

…………

O R D E R

NADEEM AKHTAR, J. – Through this Constitutional Petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to handover 80 sq. yds. bungalow to him or return the amount of Rs.150,400.00 to him. The case of the petitioner is that he booked a bungalow of 80 sq. yds. in Malir Development Authority (MDA) on 18.12.1997. The total sale consideration was agreed at Rs.217,000.00, out of which an amount of Rs.150,400.00 was paid by him on 18.12.1997. An allotment order in respect of bungalow No.E-083, Block-E, Sector 30-F, Malir Development Authority, Karachi, was issued in his name on 24.01.1998 by MDA. The petitioner has alleged that the subject bungalow was not handed over to him by MDA within the stipulated period despite his repeated requests and demands. He has further alleged that construction of the said bungalow had not started till the filing of this petition.

2. On 21.04.2016, the petitioner was put on notice to satisfy the Court on the next date as to how this petition for enforcement of the terms and conditions of a contract is maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The petitioner, who is appearing in person, contended that relief has been granted by this Court against MDA in number of Constitutional Petitions, therefore, he is also entitled to the same treatment. He relied upon Article 199 ibid, and submitted that he is an aggrieved person as contemplated in the said Article, his valuable fundamental rights to own and possess the property in question have been violated by MDA, and he has no other alternate remedy for enforcement of such rights. No other argument was advanced by the petitioner in support of his case.

3. It was conceded by the petitioner that he has filed this petition for enforcement of terms and conditions of a contract, breach whereof has been committed by MDA according to him. In our opinion, this matter involves disputed questions of fact as the alleged breach of contract cannot be decided without allowing the parties to adduce evidence. Moreover, the case set up by the petitioner is that of specific performance of a contract, which cannot be granted in the present proceedings. We do not agree with him that he does not have any other alternate remedy as he ought to have filed a civil Suit for the relief prayed for in the instant petition. In view of the above, we are afraid this petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner will, however, be at liberty to seek his remedy, if any, before the competent forum in accordance with law.

4. Foregoing are the reasons of the short order announced by us on 07.09.2016, whereby this petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

J U D G E