' Appellants' instant appeal, under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, against the Consolidation Officer and 62 others, proceeds against order dated 22-12-2004, whereby the learned Single Judge in Chambers disposed of appellants' Constitutional petition (W.P. No,6329 of 2000) with the directions that the petitioners may approach appropriate forum to seek their remedy.
2. Appellants filed the Constitutional petition (W.P.No,6329 of 2000), initially against the Consolidation Officer, City Lahore, seeking directions to the said respondent to correct the record of "Village Rai" Tehsil and District Lahore in respect of land of the appellants. Subsequently amended petition was filed thereby impleading the Member, Board of Revenue, Secretary Settlement and numerous private respondents. The Constitutional petition underwent through different stages and ultimately, as noted above, the learned Single Judge disposed of the Constitutional petition with the directions to the appellants to approach appropriate forum, vide impugned order dated 22-12- 2004, hence the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated the following facts:- ' Agricultural land measuring 362 Ghumons situated in village Rai and about 52 Ghumons and also 1-1/8 storeyed Heveli in village Rakh Rai were purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, from a non-Muslim, through a registered Sale-Deed No,229, Book No,1 and Volume No,2903 with Sub-Registrar, Lahore in consequence of decree dated 26-11-1948, passed in Suit No,163 of 1948 titled "Nawab Din v. Inder Singh"; the sale was confirmed by the Deputy Custodian, vide order dated 17-1-1951; Mutation No,198 qua the said property was entered on 5-11-1951 the mutation was never challenged and it was reflected in "Jama Bandi" for the year, 1959-60 (Annex- A); the property was reconfirmed by the Custodian, vide order dated 23-12-1951; consolidation proceedings started in the said villages in July, 1960; record was burnt twice; names of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants were deleted/removed from the column of ownership; subsequently in the year 1998 the questioned property was located by the appellants; they filed the application before the Consolidation Officer for obtaining certified copies; no order was passed and thus the appellants were constrained to file the Constitutional petition on 13-4-2000 which passed through different stages and phases and was ultimately disposed of through impugned order.
' The respondents controverted the said facts on factual and legal plane.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants while narrating the aforenoted facts, have vehemently contended that the matter does not require recording of evidence, as held by the learned Judge in Chambers, as the mutation is still reflected in "Jama Bandi" and those were never challenged before any forum, therefore, the Constitutional petition can be decided without entering into factual controversies; thus the impugned order be set aside. As regards the competency of the present appeal, his stance is that as no consolidation of land is involved, nor order was called in question and only action of the Consolidation Officer was challenged in the Constitutional petition and the Law of Consolidation is not attracted in the Constitutional petition, thus the present appeal is maintainable. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that initially the writ petition was filed only against the Consolidation Officer; the petition arose out of the proceedings of Consolidation Officer and since right of appeal is available to the aggrieved person, under section 11 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable. On merits, the case is that in view of the case of the appellants and the available record, the learned Single Judge has rightly disposed of the Constitutional petition on the ground that the factual controversies are involved. They have reinforced their arguments by submitting that the appellants are laying their claim on the basis of the decree dated 26-11-1948 and numerous factual questions are to be investigated, inter alia, as to whether in the suit/decree, the Custodian was party and what was his stance, therefore, the impugned order does not require interference. It has also been argued by them that the appellants went into a deep slumber inasmuch as did not join the proceedings for the reconstruction of record and surfaced in the proceedings in the year 1998, through different applications before the Consolidation Officer.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon the examination of the available record, we find that initially the appellants filed the Constitutional petition (W.P.No,6329 of 2000) against the Consolidation Officer, City Lahore. It would be appropriate to reproduce para. 18 of the petition and the prayer made therein.
"18. That the action and refusal to enter the names of the petitioners and their predecessor-in- interest in the consolidation proceedings tantamount to the denial of the right of the petitioners, which action of the respondents is illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction.
' Under the circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that the respondent may be directed to enter the names of the petitioners in Revenue Record. It is further prayed that the mutation of inheritance may also be ordered to be sanctioned in accordance with law. The petitioners also pray for any other relief with this Hon'ble Court may deem proper and fit in the circumstances of the case."
(Underlining is ours).
' As noted above, the appellants filed the amended Constitutional petition, para. 11 and the prayer made whereof are reproduced below for ready reference:-- "11. That thereafter the petitioners filed an application to Patwari requesting him to provide the details of the Revenue Record showing that what were the reasons why the name of the predecessor-in-interest are not appearing in the Revenue Record, the Patwari continued to linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. When the Patwari failed to give the details of the property of the petitioner then they filed an application with the Collector Consolidation Lahore who also failed to take any action on the applications of the petitioners and petitioners continued to visit the offices of Consolidation Officers.
(Annexure-B and B/1)..........
' In 'view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed therefore, that by an appropriate writ or order, petitioners may be declared to be lawful owners of the suit property and the alleged allotments of the suit-land being patently illegal, void ab initio and may be declared a such; sale of land by the alleged allottees in favour of the respondents and any other inter se transaction may also be declared as void ab initio; entries in the Revenue Record contrary to the factual position of the petitioner is incorrect and is liable to be rectified who may be directed by a writ of mandamus to rectify the Revenue Record so as to reflect the correct position."
6. It is evident from the initial prayer made by the appellants in their Constitutional petition that they were, in fact, aggrieved by the consolidation proceedings and thus, it was specifically pleaded that the action and refusal by the Consolidation Officer to enter the names of the petitioners in the consolidation proceedings are illegal and without jurisdiction. It is obvious from the said assertion that the appellants, before filing the writ petition, in fact, initiated some sort of proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, who declined the desired relief to the appellants and thus feeling dissatisfied from the said public functionary, they opted to file the Constitutional petition. Proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 envisages that the appeal shall not be competent, if the application, brought before the High Court under Article 199, arose out of any proceedings in which the law applicable provided for at least one appeal or one revision or one review.
Undoubtedly, in our view, appellants' Constitutional petition arose out of the proceedings of the Consolidation Officer, which according to the appellants, as noted above, were illegal. Section 11 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 provides for right of appeals to the aggrieved person. In view whereof, the proceedings, out of which the Constitutional petition arose, provides for filing appeals, therefore, the present appeal is hit by proviso to section 3(2) of the Law. Reforms Ordinance. The appeal is incompetent and not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases reported as Mst. Karim Bibi and others v. Hussain Bakhsh and another (PLD .1984 SC 344), Muhammad Abdullah v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Centre-I, Lahore (PLD 1985 SC 107) and Nawazul Haq Chowhan v. The State and others (2003 'SCMR 1597).
7. Even otherwise, the appellants have got no case on merits. The learned Single Judge in Chambers has rightly disposed of the Constitutional petition on the ground that the matter in controversy cannot be resolved without recording evidence. In view of the facts as narrated by the learned counsel for the appellants, as noted above, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly disposed of appellants' petition and we are not persuaded to take a contrary view. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having examined the voluminous record of the case, we are firm in our views that the appellants have raised factual controversies and disputed questions of facts, which cannot B be decided without recording evidence and such an exercise cannot be taken by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction and amply falls within the domain of the Courts of plenary jurisdiction. It is settled law that this Court can, in exercise of its jurisdiction vested in it under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, neither enter into factual controversies nor decide disputed questions of facts. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Younas Khan and 12 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary Forest and Agriculture, Peshawar and others (1993 SCM R 618), Umar Hayat Khan v. Inayat Ullah Butt and others (1994 SCM R 572), Muhammad Ali and another v. Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 2 others (1986 CLC 1123), Mst. Kaniz Fatima through Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Salim and 27 others (2001 SCM R 1493) and Secretary to the Government of .The Punjab, Forest Department, Punjab, Lahore through Divisional Forest Officer v. Ghulam Nabi and 3 others (PLD 2001 SC 415).
8. In the above perspective, we have examined the impugned order and find that the same does not suffer from any jurisdictional defect and legal error and we are not persuaded to reverse the said order. Additionally, the learned Single Judge, in Constitutional jurisdiction, has exercised his discretion, thus, we are not inclined to interfere in the said order. Impugned order is hereby maintained.
9. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present appeal is not maintainable, incompetent and devoid of merits as well, hence dismissed on both the counts leaving the parties to bear their own costs.