' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.---Precisely the case of the petitioners is that they are owners in possession of land measuring 9 Kanals 1 Marla, consisting Khasra No,830 (2-K 12 M) and Khasra No,833 (6K 9-M) situated in Mauza Bhobtain Tehsil and District Lahore, which was purchased by the petitioners through sale on 18-2-1996.
2. Contents that the respondents-authority acquired the aforenoted land. Under political pressure and that price of the land was assessed incorrectly.
3. Respondent LDA in response to the notice entered appearance and submitted parawise comments. They have stated that the acquisition and possession proceedings of the land have been carried out entirely in accordance with the relevant provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
4. Respondent's learned counsel, at the very outset, raised a preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of this constitutional petition on account of petitioners' approaching Civil Court in a suit for declaration claiming exactly the same relief, sought herein, hence the instant writ petition merits dismissal.
5. On: the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners in response argued that filing of a civil suit is not an efficacious remedy, and, thus he can maintain this petition. He relied on The Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan Works Division and 2 others (PLD 1972 SC 279); Province of Punjab and 2 others v. Ch. Zahoor Elahi and others (1982 SCMR 173);Ch. Abdul Hamid v. Deputy Commissioner and others (1985 SCMR 359); Muhammad Mubarak Khan v. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commission, Multan and Bahawalpur Division, Multan and 3 others (1980 CLC Lahore 1980); M.N. Steel Mills v. The Water and Power Development Authority (PLD 1988 Lahore 243) and Messrs Haroon Brothers v. Drugs Registration Board and another (1992 CLC Karachi 1017).
6. I have heard gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
' In Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. Case supra, it was held that when very jurisdiction of the authority to make acquisition is under challenge then insisting to avail remedy of statutory departmental appeal, may be an exercise in futility. However, such a situation is not obtaining herein.
' In Province of Punjab and 2 others supra the matter arose out of a civil suit, hence the same is not applicable.
' In Ch. Abdul Hameed's case supra the Honourable Supreme Court reiterated its view taken in Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. Case, aforementioned.
' In Muhammad Mubarak Khan's case supra a learned Judge in chamber of this Court was pleased to hold that a remedy of constitutional jurisdiction is not barred even when a civil suit is pending by placing reliance on the views expressed in Mst. Sattan and others v. Group Captain Masroor Hussain (PLD 1962 Lahore 151) and Salahuddin and others v. Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Ltd.
(PLD 1975 SC 244), not in accord with the latest pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
' In M.N. Steel Mills supra, learned Judge in chamber of this Court noticing the cases listed above exercised constitutional jurisdiction.
' In Messrs Haroon Brother's case Supra, a learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court, Karachi held that where alternate remedy was not efficacious nor speedy, will not debar litigant to seek relief in the constitutional jurisdiction.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies-II and another v. Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqt), Karachi (PLD 1992 SC 847), wherein it was held that when any party resorts to statutory remedy against an order he cannot abandon or bypass it, without any valid or reasonable cause and file constitutionalpetition challenging the same order. This practice was disapproved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
' In case of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi and 2 others v. Messrs v. N.V. Phillip's Gloeilampenfabriaken (PLD 1993 SC 434) while reiterating the view taken in the above case the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:-- "In our view, once a party opts to invoke the remedies provided for under the relevant statute, he cannot at his sweet will switch over to Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in the mid of the proceedings in the absence of any compelling and justifiable reasons.
' In Export Promotion Bureau and others v. Qaiser Shafiullah (1994 SCMR 859), it was held that constitutional jurisdiction is not designed and intended to be used as a substitute for a regular appeal or to be equated with a regular appeal. The constitutional jurisdiction is only pressed into service against an order, which is without jurisdiction or intended with malice or is violative of a provision of the constitutional law and not to correct a finding of fact.
8. After examining the law cited by both sides it becomes crystal clear that constitutional jurisdiction is exercised only where the order of statutory authority is without jurisdiction, illegal and against facts admitted on record. Pendency of civil suit was considered to be not an efficacious, alternate remedy to deprive a litigation from invoking constitutional jurisdiction. However, by now, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once a litigant opts a remedy he must exhaust the same and is not allowed to switch over to any other remedy in mid of proceedings just at his own sweet will. The principle enshrined in the above judgments had a rationale behind in expressing confidence and to A avoid any mistrust in Courts and tribunals, which may undermine the confidence of public.
9. The petitioner, during the pendency of constitutional petition has of its own, voluntarily filed a civil suit, exactly on the same cause of action, before a civil Court and, thus, cannot turn around to canvass the maintainability of constitutional petition. Reference can be had to Mukhtar Ali and others v. Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Sargodha and others (1975 SCMR 489) and Mir Zaman v. Mst. Sheda and 58 others (2000 SCMR 1689).
10. For what has been discussed above, this petition merits dismissal on the ground of maintainability and is dismissed as such.