JUDGMENT CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- Brief facts of the case out of which the present writ petition arises are that the land in question allegedly allotted to Ghulam Hussain-respondent, by the Settlement Department. Mutation No.2747, was also sanctioned in favour of Ghulam Hussain- respondent, which mutation was subsequently cancelled by the Settlement Department. Ghulam Hussain- respondent, being aggrieved filed a suit which was decreed and maintained up to the Apex Court.
Consequently, mutation was sanctioned in favour of Ghulam Hussain on 15.3.1997. The petitioner purchased the land in question from Ghulam Hussain, through sale-deed which was executed on 12.4.1988, allegedly registered on 27.4.1988, and mutation was also sanctioned in favour of the petitioner on 12.5.1988. Petitioner submitted an application before the Lahore Development Authority, for exemption of the plot in question with regard to the land in dispute. The L.D.A, failed to decide the application of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved, approached this Court through this Constitutional petition with the following prayer:- "that the alleged supplementary award (Annexure-S) and the colorable mutation No.3810 aimed at to deprive the petitioner from his ownership of 12-Kanals 8-Marlas of land situated in Khasra No.2444, 2445, 2448 and 2455 of Mauza Babu Sabu, Tehsil and District Lahore, are illegal, void and based upon mala i.e hence of no legal effect qua the rights of the petitioner who was never heard.
As a consequence thereof this Honourable Court may very kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to action accordance with law and exempt and allot the allocated plots Nos. 107, 108,109 measuring 1-Kanal each situated in Block-G and 361 and 365, measuring 7-Marlas each in Block-J, Sabzazar Lahore may very kindly be directed to be exempted and allotted to the petitioner."
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent filed Constitutional petition before this Court with regard to other land of the respondent which was acquired by the WASA. This Court directed the Land Acquisition Collector to announce the Award of the land in that writ petition. The L.D.A./ Collector, announced the Award, including land of the petitioner, instead of the land mentioned in that writ petition. Respondent Ghulam Hussain, mala fidley with the connivance of the L.D.A., wanted to usurp the land of the petitioner. L.D.A., also failed to discharge their statutory duties. He further submits that petitioner filed civil suit against the respondents which was withdrawn by the petitioner with permission to i.e fresh one.
3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that Ghulam Hussain respondent has become owner of the property in question in terms of mutation which was sanctioned On .15.3.1997, according to the petitioner, he purchased the land in question on 12.4.1988. This fact alone is sufficient that claim of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
4. The respondent L.D.A, have filed report and para wise comments in obedience of the direction of this Court and took a. Stand that matter is still pending adjudication between the private, therefore, respondent, L. D.A., is not in a position to decide the application of the petitioner in case the application is decided by the L.D.A., then L.D.A., will suffer irreparable loss by exempting the plot with regard to the land in question to respondent Ghulam Hussain as well as to the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal reiterated its arguments submits that matter has been finalized up to the Apex Court with regard to the land in question, therefore, position automatically reverted to the stage where the mutation No.2747 was sanctioned in favour of Ghulam Hussain, by the Settlement Department, from whom the petitioner has purchased the same in 12.4.1988.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record. It is better and appropriate to reproduce reply of L.D.A, of paras XV & XVI of the Constitutional petition to resolve the controversy between the parties:- "That filing of writ petition No. 16331/2002, is not denied. In compliance with the order in the said writ petition, the Land Acquisition Collector announced the Award in the name of original owner Mr. Ghulam Hussain. The LDA objected this Award on the ground that Ghulam Hussain has already sold his land to different vendees measuring 24 kanals and LDA has granted exemption to his vendees, therefore, Ghulam Hussain, the original owner is not entitled for any compensation of exemption at this stage. The Land Acquisition Collector announced the award of the ground that mutation of his vendees to whom LDA granted exemption has been cancelled by the Revenue Department.
Whereas the stance of L.D.A, is that sale deeds of their vendees still stands in their names, which have not been cancelled by the Civil Court. In case the award is announced in the name of Ghulam Hussain, L.D.A., will have to suffer double loss, one by granting exemption to his vendees and on the other hand the original owner-writ petitioner. Record reveals that his vendees moved to the Civil Court against Award of LAC in titled case Asad Shuja Siddiqui vs. L.D.A. Since the present writ petitioner has also moved the Civil Court, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable in the eyes of law:
7. Mere reading of the aforesaid reply read with the contents of the Constitutional petition, it is crystal clear that petitioner has concealed the material facts from this Court, coupled with the facts that civil suit is still pending adjudication between the private parties before the competent Court. It is settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character that he who seeks equity, must come to the Court with clean hands. The petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court as depicts from the reply of paras. 15 & 16, of the para wise comments, filed by the LDA, on 16.3.2005, therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner on the well-known principle laid down by the superior Court in the following judgments:-
(1) Principal KEMC Lahore vs. Ghulam Mustafa etc. (1983 SCMR 196).
(2) Muhammad Umar Saeed vs. Govt, of West Pakistan another. (1969 SCMR 141).
(3) Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali etc. Vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others. (PLD 1973 S.C. 236).
(4) G.M. Malik Chairman vs. Province of Punjab etc. (1990 CLC 1783).
(5) Kh. Muhammad Sharif vs. Federation of Pakistan etc. (PLD 1988 Lahore 725).
(6) Federation of Pakistan etc. Vs. Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan etc. (PLD 1989 SC 166);
(7) Rana Muhammad Arshad Commissioner vs. Add!. Commissioner Revenue etc. (1998 SCMR 1462).
8. As mentioned above, civil suit is pending adjudication, it is a good ground not to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ch. Tanvir Ahmad Siddiky vs. Province of East Pakistan and others (PLD 1968 S.C. 185). Even otherwise in case the contents of the writ petition and para wise comments are put in juxta position, then it brings the case of the petitioner in the area of disputed questions of facts. This Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed question of facts in Constitutional jurisdiction as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court Haji Muhammad Younas Khan vs. Province of NWFP etc. (1993 SCMR 618).
9. In view of what has been stated above, this Constitutional petition is disposed of accordingly.
However, the competent Civil Court shall decide the civil suit without being influenced by the observations of this Court in accordance with law. Even otherwise petitioner has alternative remedy to i.e a civil suit before a competent Court for resolution of disputed questions of fact, therefore, petitioner is well within his right to avail the alternative remedy by filing a civil suit, if so, advised. Disposed of with the aforesaid observation.