' CH. NAEEM MASOOD, J.---With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is being treated as a Pacca Case.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:--- "(i) That the respondents Nos.1 to 4 may kindly be directed not to treat the petitioner discriminately and they be ordered to adjust the land purchased by him as back as in the year 1976 from Muhammad Sharif a vendee from Ghulam Rasool.
(ii) That the order of the Commissioner D. G. Khan (respondent No,2) dated 21-10-1991 (Annexure Q/6), order of the E.A.C.O. Dated 23-11-1991 (Annexure R/1) and consequential entries in the Revenue record, may be declared to be illegal, mala fide, without any lawful authority and of no legal effect.
(iii) That the proposal and confirmation of land in favour of respondent No,4 may be declared to be illegal, mala fide, forged, ante-dated and without any lawful authority."
3. The synoptical resumption of the case carved in chronological order as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been owner in possession of two plots measuring 8-Marlas each purchased from the rightful predecessor. The mutation could not be sanctioned because of the lack of credibility of revenue staff. The petitioner, it is averred was considered as encoacher, and therefore he filed Writ Petition No,553 of 1983 in this court, which was dismissed on 3-7-1983, as the petitioner was not held to be the owner of the land. The petitioner then filed an application on 16-4-1983 to the Assistant Commissioner Layyah/ respondent No,4 followed by subsequent various applications and then the petitioner also filed an application to the Deputy Commissioner Layyah for the same relief, but all these applications were either dumped or not responded to. It is submitted that respondent No,5 Malik Ghulam Haider had taken over a substantial part of the petitioner's property therefore the petitioner inquired about his credential and came to know that he had purchased this land from Syed Muzaffar Bukhari, which sale deed the petitioner contends to be forged and ante-dated. It is submitted by the petitioner that having obtained an impression that the petitioner would not get any relief from the revenue authorities and the remedy before them being not adequate, efficacious, and speedy the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No,5 has seriously controverted the stand taken by the writ petitioner and in nutshell has submitted that the petition is impregnated with factual controversies, therefore, the same is not tenable under the law. It is further submitted that the petitioner is hit by res judicata and the principles of constructive res judicata as earlier Writ Petition No,553 of 1983, on the same issue had been decided by this Court. It is also submitted that the petitioner has had alternate remedy by filing appeal before the revenue authorities and the same having not been done, the petition is not maintainable. It is further submitted on facts that respondent No,5 is the lawful and bona fide purchaser of the land in dispute from Muzaffar Bukhari and petitioner being just an encroacher, the petition is not maintainable against respondent No,5 at all.
5. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has advanced similar points and has fully adopted the arguments of learned counsel of respondent No,5.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the parties and have been able to peruse the record with their able assistance.
7. Summarizing the eminent and the appreciable arguments of the learned counsel of the parties, I consider the following moot points are involved in the case. These may not be exhaustive but according to my vision these are of pivotal importance:-
(i) Whether the petitioner has approached this Court which clean hands by demonstrating the actual facts germane to the case?
(ii) Whether the petitioner approached the revenue authorities with facts disclosing the order of the High Court in Writ Petition No,553 of 1983?
(iii) Whether the present writ petition is barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata?
' In answer to these three points it is observed that it is evident that the petitioner along with 12 others having been considered not to be owners and mere encroachers faced demolition of their construction from the relevant revenue authorities. Writ petition No,553 of 1983 was filed against the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner Layyah for issuing a writ of prohibition to restrain the respondents from demolishing the petitioner's owned houses' construction i.e, the property in dispute. The petitioner and others in this writ petition claimed to be the owners of the property in dispute through registered sale-deeds. This writ petition was decided by this Court on 3-7-1983, with the following observations:--- "The report received from the Deputy Commissioner shows that the petitioners were encroachers on the land which belong to T.D.A. And not to Muhammad Sharif from whom the petitioners claim to have purchased the land. The actions of the respondents are, therefore, justified. The petitioners have no title to the land. There is, therefore, no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed in limine."
In para.20 of the writ petition the petitioners made running remarks about the earlier writ petition but did not disclose the whole truth. A substantial issue of ownership over the property in dispute had been decided, therefore, the petitioner neither approached this court with clean hands nor before the revenue authority disclosing them about the factum of the dismissal of the writ petition.
It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner ought or might to have submitted all the grounds of his attack in the writ petition and the same having not been done; the petition is hit by constructive res judicata also. Moreover, according to Order II, Rule 2, C.P.C., all the causes had to be joined together and no cause could be left to be agitated subsequently. It is an after thought that when the petitioner had made a tough exercise for getting the property in dispute adjusted in his name then he came to know that respondent No,5 was in the field claiming the same property. The fact remains that respondent No,5 had been claiming the ownership of the property in question since before Writ Petition No,553 of 1983 was filed:--
(iv) Whether the petitioner wants the resolution of controverted facts for example antedating alleged forgery of respondent No,5 and the malice and bias of the revenue authorities being in league with respondent No,5?
' In answer to this point I may observe that Hon'ble apex Court has laid down the settled principles of law that controverted facts be not brought to the High Court for resolution under the extraordinary exercise of writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any truthfulness of his assertion about his superior right over the property in dispute as compared to respondent No,5, nor he has manifested by cogent record any malice or bias exercised by the revenue authorities against him qua respondent No,5.
(v) Whether the petitioner had not available with him an efficacious, speedy and alternate remedy?
' In answer to this point I may observe that the impugned orders were susceptible to be appealed against before the higher revenue authorities. It is wrong to say that the writ petition was a speedy remedy. The pendency of this writ petition is a classical example that it was not a speedy remedy.
The writ petition was filed in 1994 and it is being disposed of in 2009.
(vi) Whether the petitioner has a preferential right of ownership over the property in juxta position to respondent No,5?
' My simple answer is that it is not. Respondent No,5 is -a bona fide purchaser from the real owners of the property and the petitioner has not been able to establish that he was the owner of the property through legal predecessor.
8. Although the points discussed above are not all embracing and exhaustive yet it is categorically held that the petitioner has no cause to agitate through this writ petition.
9. In sequel thereof, the writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10. Before parting with this judgment I am thankful for the valuable assistance by the learned counsel for the parties, which helped me in deciding this case.