' CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD TAJ, J.--- This appeal, by leave, has been filed to challenge the judgment passed by the High Court on 8-9-2003 whereby the writ petition was dismissed.
2. The facts are that the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking direction against the respondents to acquire the land in his ownership comprising Survey No,694 measuring 14 Kanals, 6 Marlas situate in Village Pallandri, Tehsil Pallandri. It was claimed that the land is in possession of Health Department of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government which is not paying any rent, therefore, he was constrained to tile the writ petition for acquisition. The writ petition was finally dismissed. Hence, this appeal.
3. Mr. Imdad Ali Mallick, the learned counsel representing the appellant, contended that the judgment passed by the High Court was illegal as, according to him, the learned Judge could not dismiss the writ petition on the ground that there were disputed questions of facts, therefore, the writ petition could not be granted. It was argued that the appellant was a bona fide allottee of the land and there was no dispute about the allotment before the High Court neither the question could be raised there. The appellant placed on record the undisputed ownership with a Provisional Proprietary Rights Transfer Order issued by the Custodian Evacuee Property. The only point before the High Court was whether a direction could be issued or not. By simply raising dispute and denying right without any proof was not sufficient enough to dismiss the writ petition regarding it a disputed question of fact.
4. Raja Ibrar Hussain, the learned Advocate-General, who appeared on behalf of the respondents, while controverting the arguments addressed on behalf of the appellant, argued that keeping in view the date of allotment after calculating the age of the appellant, it clearly shows that the allotment is bogus and the allottee-appellant is not the genuine person, therefore, the High Court in such situation correctly dismissed the writ petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking direction against the respondents that he is owner of the land in possession of the Health Department which is not making payment of any rent as such he sought direction against the respondents to acquire the land in dispute. The respondents resisted the writ petition on the ground that allotment is bogus. It is correct that a direction is only issued if a claim put by the petitioner is lawful and a right for issuance of direction resides with him but simply denial of the respondents would not make the matter as disputed question of fact in a Constitutional petition. The only question raising controversy between the parties was whether on the basis of aforesaid claim of right a direction for redressal of appellant's grievances could be issued. The respondents did not bring anything in support of their assertion except a bare objection that the appellant is not lawful owner of the land as allottee.
6. Disputed question of facts does not mean the denial of a right asserted in a Constitutional petition. If a party asserts a right and the other party denies the right, it does not make a question as disputed one. Disputed question of facts means that in respect of certain matter a resolution cannot be made unless a detailed scrutiny of facts is required to be made or some evidence is to be recorded though in some suitable cases recording of evidence to resolve the disputed question of fact is also held permissible but the Courts do it sparingly for the sake of justice. Reference may be made to a case reported as Abdul Waheed Butt v. Excises and Taxation Officer and 3 others 2003 SCR 298 where it was held:-- ".... Mere fact that the defendants have denied the existence of certain facts is not sufficient to consider such question as disputed question of fact."
' In another case reported as Syeda Shaista Mumtaz v. Secretary, Education and 6 others 2003 SCR 446 this Court, while dealing with the proposition, gave following observations:-- "... I endorse the finding of the High Court and that the disputed question which requires to be resolved by recording the evidence of the parties for and against their respective claims, is not normally resolved in writ jurisdiction. However, the High Court has got jurisdiction to resolve the disputed question of fact in suitable case."
' In another case reported as Ch. Muhammad Mahmood v. Aurangzeb and 6 others 1997 CLC 1708 the proposition was resolved in the following manner:-- "(7) It was also observed in the judgment under appeal that such disputed questions could not be resolved by this Court in writ jurisdiction. We may observe that the questions involved in the present case can be easily resolved in light of the documentary evidence produced by the parties.
Even otherwise where no other adequate remedy is available it is the duty of the Court exercising writ jurisdiction to decide disputed question of fact if it is possible to do so in light of affidavit or other evidence produced by the parties."
7. The appellant has filed a Constitutional petition for issuance of the requisite direction on the ground that he was a lawful owner of the land in dispute which is in possession of the respondents who are not paying the rent nor have got acquired the land. In view of the fact that the learned Judge in the High Court entertained certain doubts about the allotment and also proceeded to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that disputed questions of fact are involved which, according to him could not be resolved, we do not want to decide the matter on this record and remand it to the High Court to decide the writ petition after resolving the question of validity of allotment and to make inquiry in any manner if need so arises. The appeal is accepted as indicated above.