' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.---The petitioner filed the instant Constitutional petition challenging the orders, dated 10-1.4995 and 28-8-2003 passed by respondent No,2 to be declared illegal and unlawful. Further stated in the petition, that the petitioner purchased agricultural land measuring 5 Kanals, 1 Marla from one Sarfraz Ali son of Ijaz Ali on 26-9-1974 through the Mutation No,691 and since then the petitioner along with other arc in possession of the same. Father of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 fraudulently got entered in RL-II No,22 about the land in dispute. The respondent No,2 conducted an inquiry and concluded in his order that the father of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 namely Meharban had got entries of the said-land fraudulently and the same was cancelled by respondent No,2 from his Khata under section 10/11 of the Settlement Land Act. Thereafter the proceedings regarding the land in question was conducted by respondent No,2 and the land in dispute was confirmed in the name of respondent No,5 on 20-9-1974 from the name of the Central Government. The petitioner, in fact, purchased the said land , from the respondent No,5 against the Mutation No,695, dated 20-9-1974 recorded in the name of respondent No,5. Against the said order passed by the respondent No,2, Writ Petition No,178-R/1976 was filed before this Court. The case was remanded for re-- hearing of the same authority and the respondent No,2 after the remand, restored his order dated 10-1-1995, restoring Register Khata RL.11 No,22 but without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
2. In response to the notices issued by this Court, the respondent No,2 filed the report and parawise comments whereas Ali Sher and legal heirs of respondent No,2 filed their written statement. In the parawise comments it was stated that one Meharban fraudulently got the allotment of the land in dispute and thereafter Sarfraz Ali respondent No,5 again in the same way got the land in dispute mutated in his name from where the petitioner allegedly purchased the land. On the direction of the District Collector, the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector vide order, dated 21-3-1990 restored the land in favour of Wali Muhammad and lastly the Assistant Commissioner, Notified Officer, Sheikhupura on 10-1-1995 again passed the order in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4. In the written statement the legal heirs of respondents Nos.3 and 4 challenged the maintainability of this petition on the ground that the petitioner has concealed the true facts and has not come to the Court with clean hand; the petition is bad due to non-joinder of necessary parties and lastly that the matter has already been finally adjudicated by the Civil Court as the petitioner and the legal heirs of Muhammad Sarfraz Khan, respondent No,5 filed a civil suit which was dismissed on 14-4-2000 and appeal file by the petitioner and his brother was also dismissed on 27-3-2001.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the orders passed by respondent No,2 are totally against the facts and record and the law applicable to the case. The respondent No,2 had no authority in law to pass such like orders as the petitioner has rightly purchased the land in question against consideration and the same is still in possession. The respondent No,2 has passed the order impugned herein, at the back of the petitioner as no opportunity of hearing was provided and the order because of violative of the principle of natural justice is not sustainable in law. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent Mr. Kaleem Ahmad Khurshid submitted that the Constitutional petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds; the petitioner 'has not come to the Court with clean hands and has concealed the true facts; due to non-joinder of necessary parties: legal heirs of Muhammad Sarwar Khan have not been impleaded; the matter has already been finally concluded in civil litigation as the petitioner and legal heirs of Muhammad Sarwar Khan filed a civil suit but the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 14-1- 2000 and the appeal filed by the petitioner and his brother was too dismissed on 27-3-2001. It was also contended by the said learned counsel, that the petitioner never purchased the land in question while in fact the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Muhammad Sarwar Khan manoeuvred and got allotted the land in dispute in favour of fictitious persons namely Sarfraz Khan from whom the said Muhammad Sarwar Khan predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner purchased the land and mutation was attested in favour of Muhammad Sarwar Khan. The learned counsel also supported the orders dated 10-1-1995 and 21-8-2003 passed by the learned respondent No,2.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The report/parawise comments filed on behalf of the respondent No,2 states in the following terms:-- ' "The dispute related to land measuring 5 Kanals and 1 Marla comprising Squire No,140, Killa No,26 Mouza Lagar, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. The delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner rescued a complainant that Mahraban had fraudulently got allotted land against R.L.II Khata No,220. An enquiry was made and vide order dated 16-5-1974, this was cancelled. Mutation in favour of the Central Government was restored.
' Sarfraz Ali respondent No,5 somehow got this land mutated in his name vide Mutation No,691 dated 20-9-1974. The petitioners claims to have purchased the land from Sarfraz Ali. Writ Petition No,178-R-76 "Wali Muhammad v. Sarfraz Ali etc." was decided by the Court vide judgment dated 10- 11-1985 and the case was remanded to Notified Officer. After remand the case was decided vide order, dated 30-7-1987 by the Notified Officer.
' The District Collector vide order dated 24-3-1988 observed that the matter be looked into afresh and decided after hearing the parties. The Assistant Commissioner/ Collector vide order, dated 21- 3-1990 restored the land in favour of Wali Muhammad etc. ' Assistant Commissioner/Notified Officer, Sheikhupura, vide order dated 10-1-1995 again passed order in favour of respondents Nos.3 and 4.
' Ali Sher son of Wali Muhammad filed an application for implementation of order dated 10-1-1995. It has been decided by the answering respondent vide order dated 21-8-2003."
6. The written statement filed on behalf of the contested respondent also revealed a fact that earlier to, this, the petitioner and the legal heirs of Muhammad Sarwar Khan filed a civil suit regarding the same land which was dismissed by the learned Civil Court and the appeal by the learned 1st Appellate Court vide judgment and decree, dated 14-1-2000 and 27-3-2001 respectively.
The learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted with the filing of the civil suit and its dismissal upto the 1st Appellate Court although the learned counsel for the petitioner has nothing to do but submitted that because of facts of this case, the Constitutional petition can be filed and is maintainable. Regarding the other issues controverted by respondent No,2 by filing the reports and parawise commc the learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy this Court.
7. As the petitioner had already avail the alternate remedy by filing the civil suit which has finally been concluded by the 1st Appellate Court as no further remedy was availed against the said order so the lis regarding the same land in question has already been finally concluded by competent Court and in this eventuality the Constitutional petition is not maintainable. Even otherwise, the case, which has already been finally concluded, cannot be re-opened or interfered while exercising the extra-Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. It is also observed that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands as the true facts regarding the filing of the suit and its result had not mentioned in the Constitutional petition so the petitioners are otherwise not entitled for any relief.
8. With these observations, this petition has no force and is dismissed with no order as to costs.