' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---The petitioner along with his brother Muhammad Aslam purchased land measuring 17 Kanals 9 Marlas comprising Khasra No,427 in village Arazi Sehjpal, Tehsil Cantt., District Lahore, vide mutation No,221 attested on 9-5-1973 (Annex-F). The respondents are stated to have taken over the possession of the said land without consent of the petitioner and without any consideration or compensation and, of course, without any inter-partes agreement or lawful acquisition proceedings for extension of its development scheme. The petitioner approached them with his grievance and was told that the matter shall be resolved and he will be compensated accordingly. However, vide letter, dated 6-9-2006 (Annex-E) it was informed that the land has already been purchased by respondent No,1 . Following prayer has been made in the writ petition:- - "In view of the facts and circumstances hereinabove, the petitioner very humbly prays for appropriate writ and seek a declaration to the effect that the impugned acts of respondents being violative of Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution, are illegal, unjust, unfair and unjust and untenable in law and that respondents have no lawful authority to deprive the petitioner of his valuable property without proper acquisition and payment of compensation and also that the petitioner is entitled to be treated with like other owners of whom the land was utilized in other Phases by the respondents and also that the respondents are bound to redress the grievance of petitioner in accordance with law.
' A direction may kindly be issued to respondents to proceed in accordance with law either by obtaining the property through lawful acquisition, award or by private treaty on payment of compensation through developed plots or in the alternative, to refrain from utilizing the landed property of the petitioner in any development scheme or making allotment thereof to any of their members without the consent and approval of the petitioner and also to restore the same to petitioner."
' The respondents in their written statement had pleaded that the title of the petitioner is disputed in a pending suit. It has further been stated that they had directed the petitioner to produce his clear ownership title but he failed to do so. At the same time it has been stated that the land has been purchased by respondent No,1 through registered conveyance deed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the land was purchased by the petitioner and his brother, namely, Muhammad Aslam in equal share and sale was incorporated in the column of possession against Khasra No,427. He refers to registered conveyance deed, dated 9-8-2004 to assert that the respondent No,1 itself has purchased the share of his brother from the said Khasra No,427. Whereas the sale-deed relied upon by the respondents has been effected in the column of ownership against the share purchased by respondent No,
1. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, argues that a disputed question of fact is involved and this Court cannot decide the same in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Refers to the said pending suit. According to her, the land has been lawfully purchased by the respondent DHA. However, she has not denied the factum of purchase of share of the brother of the petitioner by respondent No, 1.
3. I have gone through the several documents appended by both the parties as also record presented by the said Officer of respondent No,1, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. All the primary documents of sale being relied upon are undisputed. According to these documents Ahmed Din recorded co-sharer was in possession of Khasra No,427 measuring 17 kanals 9 marlas. He sold the said specific Khasra to Muhammad Malik son of Khan Muhammad, who was recorded to be in possession as a vendee. Vide mutation No,221 (Annex-F), attested on 9- 5-1973, Muhammad Saleem, the petitioner and his brother Muhammad Aslam purchased the said specific Khasra number in equal share through registered sale-deed, dated 22-3-1973 which was incorporated in column of possession in favour of both brothers. Vide registered sale-deed, dated 14-7-2004 respondent No,1 purchased, inter alia, Khasra No,427 (8 kanals 14 marlas) from Muhammad Saleem the brother and co-vendee of the petitioner. This sale-deed was incorporated in the revenue record vide mutation No, 925 attested on 8-9-2005. I my note here that so far as Khasra No,427 is concerned, the same was incorporated in the possession column with regard to half share of brother of the petitioner purchased by respondent No,l. The sale-deed being relied upon by respondent No,1 in its written statement is, dated 6-5-2006 and this was incorporated in the revenue record vide mutation No,1162 attested on 18-5-2006. Admittedly Khasra No,427 is comprised in Khata No,16. The document clearly indicates that in respect of Khata No,16 the said sale-deed, dated 6-5-2006 was incorporated in column of ownership, whereas the entries in the column of possession continued as such .
4. Having examined the said documents I have no manner of doubt in my mind that the two brothers purchased the specific Khasra No,427 in Khata No,16 total measuring 17 kanals 9 marlas in equal share. The sale was incorporated in the possession column of the said khasra number. The respondent No,1, of course, purchased half share of brother of the petitioner vide registered sale- deed, dated 9-8-2004, which of course, was incorporated, in the possession column vide mutation No, 925. Net result is that half share of Khasra No,427 purchased by the petitioner remained intact.
5. So far as the objection to the competency of the writ petition is concerned, I find that in view of the admitted documents on record and particularly the purchase of half share of the brother of the petitioner in Khasra No,427 by respondent No,1 itself leave no disputed question of fact. So far as the suit is concerned, a copy of the plaint has been appended with the writ petition. The dispute pertains to the land owned by Miraj Din the father of the plaintiffs in the said suit and the petitioner and other brothers and sisters are parties to the said suit. I find that Khata No,16 is not mentioned in the plaint and further present dispute relates to Khasra No, 427, which has been purchased by two brothers in the year, 1973, whereas Taj died on 8-12-2002. Besides, order, dated 1-4-2006 goes to show that regarding the land subject matter of the suit and a gift has been pleaded by the petitioner and his said brothers to have been made vide mutation No,124 attested in the year, 1959.
The land, as noted by me above, was purchased by two brothers in the year, 1973. There is, thus, no dispute anywhere regarding this land.
6. As to whether relief can be granted in this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the cases of District Officer Revenue, Kasur v. Abdul Rehmat Shaukat (2006 SCM R 188).
Province of Punjab through Secretary Irrigation, Govt. Of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others v. Abdur Rehman Shaukat (1999 SCM R 2610) and Mst. Mukhtiar Fatima v. Deputy Commissioner, Multan and 2 others (1997 MLD 17.92). In the said judgments the act of the State functionaries in taking over the land of the citizens and utilizing for their purpose without lawful acquisition or payment of compensation/consideration were declared to be void.
7. For all that has been discussed above, the writ petition is allowed. The act of the respondents in depriving the petitioner of his property without his consent, proper acquisition or purchase or payment of compensation/consideration is declared to be without lawful authority and void. A mandamus is accordingly issued to the respondents to act in the matter in accordance with law and to consider the matter of payment of adequate compensation/consideration to the petitioner for his land and to pay the same within two months from the date of this judgment and in case they fail to do so, to restore the possession of the land to the petitioner. At the moment parties are left to bear their own costs.