1. ' GHULAM RABBANI, J.---These seven Constitutional petitions involve common questions of facts and law and are disposed of by this single order.
2. ' Petitioners have called in question a common order dated 1-2-1999 passed by the Collector/Deputy Commissioner Malir striking off entry No,121 dated 30-5-1956, Nos. 287 to 295 dated 5-8-1997 and subsequent entries bearing Nos. 298 to 304 of village form VII of 1997-98 in respect of S.Nos. 302 to 310 of Deh Dih,Tapo Ibrahim Haidri, taluka and District Malir ad-measuring 100-00 acres, hereafter to be called disputed land, and thereby restoring the said land to government.
3. ' Briefly stated, case of the petitioners is that they are owners of the disputed land and such entries appeared in the Revenue Record of rights. Originally, it belonged to two persons namely, Muhammad Yousuf and Haji Abdullah both sons of Ladha from whom it was purchased by four other persons namely, Moosa, Umer Din, Muhammad Ali and Ilyas vide entry No,A-2/121 dated 30- 5-1956 in the record of rights. All these four persons died and left twenty six legal heirs behind them; consequently, entries were successively mutated in the Revenue Record of rights to the extent of twenty five paisas in the names of each set of legal heirs of above mentioned four deceased persons. Subsequently, all the seven petitioners purchased the disputed land to the extent of 14-11 acres and 52 Square yards each, total area 100-00 acres, by way of seven separate registered Sale Deeds executed through a general attorney appointed by the above mentioned 26 legal heirs under a registered power of attorney.
4. ' It is stated that on 20-1-1999 petitioners applied for grant of fresh copy of record of rights, which, the respondent No,3, Mukhtiarkar Malir and the respondent No,2, Collector of District Malir declined to supply. Therefore, seven different suits were instituted by petitioners before this Court for declaration and permanent injunction, wherein respondent No,2 filed his written statement and disclosed that the entries of record of rights in the name of petitioners stood cancelled by the respondent No,2.
5. ' Now, the grievance of the petitioners is that they being owners of disputed land, were not heard before the impugned order was passed and that there is no provision in relevant Revenue laws empowering the Collector to cancel the above entries in respect of disputed land without hearing the parties. Therefore, by impugning the order of the Collector as above, they have prayed that the same be set aside.
6. ' We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.A.-G. And have minutely examined the material placed before us.
7. ' On examination of the impugned order, we find that the disputed land is a very valuable land and it can fetch 500 million to 1.0 billion in open auction. Entries in the Revenue Record showing transfer of land from the name of Muhammad Yousuf and Haji Abdullah to the names of Moosa, Umerdin, Muhammad Ali and Ilyas, Jokhio by caste and other such entries regarding devolution of land to the heirs of these four persons are sham and bogus. It is averred that all these entries have been forged and fabricated in 1997 after 83 years of original entries of 1914-15, which conferred only a restricted and not freely transferable right over the land in the names of original khatedars.
8. ' It also appears that in this exercise of fabrication of record the location of the land was changed by substituting it with the disputed land so also there is violaton of mandatory provision of section 42 of Sindh Land Revenue Act which envisages that before entries regarding heirship are made in the Revenue Record, the Mukhtiarkar and the Tapedar have to hold a pre-announced Jalsa-e- Aam (open Katchery) and statements of the heirs, relatives of deceased and elders/notables of the area are to be recorded with details of proper identification of all of them in open gathering. No such exercise was undertaken before mutating the record of rights in favour of legal heirs of four deceased. Also, the power of attorney through whom the disputed land was purchased by petitioner was found bogus. The Collector, in order to ascertain validity of said power of attorney, referred this document for verification. In this regard the report of fingerprints Expert forwarded by the AIG Criminalistic Division revealed that out of 26 thumb-impressions on the power of attorney, 16 thumb-impressions in the name of executants in the register of Sub-Registrar were of one and same person and five other thumb impressions were made by another single person. Learned Collector issued notices to all these so-called executants/legal heirs of above named four deceased persons, their Attorney and Sub-Registrar but none of them except sub-Registrar appeared before him.
9. ' Learned Collector, while verifying the validity of the first transfer entry No,121 dated 30-5-1956 from the name Of Muhammad Yousuf and Haji Abdullah to predecessors-in-interest of so-called 26 sellers of disputed land, has, beside above conspicuous discrepancies, noted the following, as well:-- "e. The paper beneath the entry clearly complains of rough treatment meted out to clear actual entry No,121 which was of one line. The rubbed word "Sarkari" in the column of title of land, is visible even to a naked eye. ' f. No expert opinion is required to ascertain the difference in the handwriting and ink of the entry number 121 and the rest of the entries in the register in that period."
10. ' After enquiry, learned Collector came to this conclusion that all the above entries are fake and fabricated and passed the impugned orders.
11. ' In his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are owners of the disputed land, the entries regarding this land in the record of rights were properly kept by the concerned lower revenue officer/officials which have been cancelled by the Collector under the impugned order without notice to and without hearing the petitioners; and thereby he violated the principle of natural justice.
12. ' Above contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners have been considered by us. In the first place, it may be noted that original entry of 1914-15 in the names of deceased Muhammad Yousuf and Haji Abdullah is said to confer upon these two khatedars only a restricted and not freely transferable right. It is the case of the petitioners that these two persons sold the disputed land to other four_ persons, not by a registered instrument but, as per another entry No,121 dated 30-5- 1956 in V.F.No,VII (annexure A-4 to this petition), for which learned Collector pointing out a host of discrepancies, observed that it is forged, fraudulent, irregular and illegal and is aimed at to grab precious government land worth Rs,500 million to 1 (one) billion in active and wilful connivance of the officials. The petitioners themselves have purchased the same for not less than Rs,9.9 million.
13. ' Regarding mutation entries showing devolution of disputed land in the names of 26 legal heirs of above mentioned deceased persons, it is lleged that these entries have been kept in violation of mandatory provision of law.
14. ' It is the case of petitioner that they purchased the disputed land from abovementioned 26 persons through their attorney Sadruddin whose power of attorney was also found to be spurious.
15. ' It may further be noted that all the sellers/executants of said power of attorney, their attorney so also witnesses of the Foti Khata Badal were issued notices by learned Collector to afford them an opportunity to bring any material in favour of the transaction. None of them except the attorney and one of the witnesses namely Usman could be served and those who were served, also failed to appear before the Collector. It is strange that petitioners have not denied these facts by any specific statement.
16. ' There is no cavil to the proposition that the principle of natural justice based on maxim "Audi Alteram Partem" is to be read into the relevant provisions of law and is available to any person who is owner of vested right and is affected by any of actions taken to prejudice his such right. In the instant case, petitioners claim to have acquired the rights of ownership by way of registered sale deed executed by an attorney under registered power of attorney which as per report of fingerprint Expert was not a valid document in the above stated background of this case. A person seeking equity must do equity and is also required to come before the Court with clean hands. Equally it is true that the action of individuals which is not honest and is based on mala fide may not be allowed to exist merely for the reasons that principle of natural justice was violated. In case, it is required, reference can be made to case of Abdul Khalique Indhar and others v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Forest, Fisheries and Livestock Department, Karachi and 3 others reported in 2000 SCM R 907. Viewed in the above perspective, we do not find any force in the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners.
17. ' Besides above, nature of controversy involved in this matter relates to the legality, correctness and propriety of entries in the Revenue Record which essentially is a factual controversy requiring full- fledged enquiry by way of recording evidence. It is consistent view of the apex Court that in cases where factual controversies are involved, constitutional petition in High Court is not a proper remedy. Reference can be made to case of Muhammad Younus and 12 others v. Government of the N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary Forest and Agriculture Peshawar and others reported in 1993 SCM R 618.
18. ' In this matter, order has been passed by Collector striking off the entries from the Revenue Record,. Order of the Collector is amenable to appellate jurisdiction under section 161 of Sindh Land Revenue Act and thereafter petitioners have also another remedy under section 164 ibid so also they have remedy under section 53 of Sindh Land Revenue Act, which is reproduced below:-- "53. Suit for declaratory decrees by persons aggrieved by an entry in a record. If any person considers himself aggrieved by an entry in a record-of-rights [or in a periodical record] as to any right of which he is in possession, he may institute a suit for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)".
19. ' Thus they have adequate alternate remedy available to seek redress of their grievances, in accordance with relevant laws. It is settled principle of law that High Court has to be specially cautious in exercising its constitutional jurisdiction when other adequate remedy is available to the party invoking that jurisdiction. Reference can be made to the case of Ch. Muhammad Ismail v.
20. Fazalzada Civil Judge, Lahore reported in PLD 1996 SC 246.
21. ' In the above circumstances, these petitions are patently not maintainable. Accordingly we dismiss the same in limine along with listed application.