' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this constitutional petition the petitioner prays for the setting aside of orders passed by respondents Nos. 2 to 4 dated 21-10-2009, 12-5-2008, 29-12-2006 and 26-2-2003 respectively and report dated 29-4-2002 be declared illegal, without lawful authority and void. He also prayed that Horse Breeding Tenancy may be ordered to be allotted to the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the instant petition are that Wasawa was the grandfather of the petitioner. He had two sons, namely, Sher Muhammad and Bashir Ahmad. Sher Muhammad was the elder brother of Bashir Ahmad. Bashir Ahmad is the father of the petitioner who died 11 years before and on his death about 31 years ago the land in dispute was allotted to Sher Muhammad, the elder brother of -the petitioner with the consent of Bashir Ahmad that both the brothers will keep the tenancy in equal share and also maintain the mare accordingly. The petitioner's father Bashir Ahmad and Sher Muhammad continued accordingly and on the death of Bashir Ahmad, the father of the petitioner, Sher Muhammad executed an agreement on 27-12-1997 that now onward the petitioner would get half of the land and also maintain the mare. The aforesaid arrangement was going on when unfortunately Sher Muhammad died on 21-11-2001. Sher Muhammad married Mst. Bhaagan and had no issue from her. The petitioner was satisfied with the arrangement going on previously but all of a sudden he came to know that the respondent No,1 got an ex parte report on 29-4-2009 from the District Remount Officer/respondent No,5 in his favour and also got an ex parte allotment order from the District Collector/respondent No,4 on 26-2-2003 showing him to be the son of Sher Muhammad deceased. The petitioner came to know that respondent No,1 had also got sanctioned Mutation No,1278 dated 3-1-2002 in his favour as a son of Sher Muhammad deceased. The petitioner challenged the Mutation of Inheritance No,1278 dated 3-1-2002 sanctioned in favour in the civil court which is pending adjudication. He also filed an appeal against the ex parte order of District Collector dated 26-2-2003 before the EDOR/respondent No,3 who was pleased to dismiss the same vide order dated 29-12-2006. The petitioner challenged the vires of the order of the EDOR and DOR dated 29-12-2006 and 26-2-2003 in the ROR No,141/07. The revision petition came up for hearing before learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, who was pleased to dismiss the same vide order dated 12-5-2008. As the order of respondent No,2 dated 12-5-2008 was not a speaking order, therefore, the petitioner filed a review petition before him under section 8 of West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 21-10-2009, hence this constitutional petition.
3. Without dilating upon the merits and demerits of the case it is pointed out that prior to filing of this writ petition for setting aside the orders dated 21-10-2009, 12-5-2008, 29-12-2006 and 26-2- 2003 respectively the petitioner Muhammad Ameer filed a civil suit on 18-11-2009 in the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Sahiwal assailing the same orders which are assailed in this writ petition. Muhammad Ameer petitioner did not disclose in this writ petition the filing of the same which is serious concealment of facts. Relief under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 is always a discretionary relief. The petitioner should approach this court with clean hands. This material concealment of facts not disclosing the filing of civil suit before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sahiwal by the petitioner is sufficient ground for refusing the relief sought for in this writ petition. The petitioner cannot avail two remedies simultaneously. He is bound to choose either to avail the remedy of filing civil suit or filing this writ petition. At a time petitioner has availed both the remedies.
4. In "Muhammad Anwar and another v. Government of Sindh through Secretary, Home Department and 2 others" 1986 MLD 1440 (D.B) Karachi, it is held that:- "Proper course---Title of car in dispute being subject-matter of civil suit pending adjudication in civil court proper course for custody of such car, held, would be to move application in that respect to concerned civil court".
5. In another case "Muhammad Anwar v. Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad and others" 1993 CLC 1851 Lahore, it is held that:-- "Since the petitioner has already taken recourse to the remedy of civil suits which in the facts and circumstances of the case could be said to be not adequate or efficacious, he is not entitled to agitate the same dispute in constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed but with no order as to costs".
6. In "Haji Dossas Limited and others v. The Federal Government of Pakistan through the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Food and (Agrarian Management), Islamabad and another" 1986 CLC 1193 D.B it is held that:-- "(N) Civil Suit pending in respect of matter referred to in constitutional petition, effect---where suit in respect of same cause of action as referred to in constitutional petition, was pending, High Court held would not take up such matter in constitutional jurisdiction";,
7. In "Saleem Akhtar v. Province of Punjab" 1994 CLC Lah. 2290, it is held that:-- "Dispute between parties relating to title to immovable property--- Constitutional petition--- Maintainability--- Suit relating to disputes about title was pending adjudication in Civil Court--- Suit being appropriate remedy for settlement of title disputes relating to immovable property between parties, remedy under Constitutional jurisdiction was not available in such cases except when violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory functionary was alleged---High Court could not allow its Constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding title disputes relating to immovable property for which remedies under general law were available---Constitutional jurisdiction was not intended to substitute ordinary remedies by way of suit available to party--- Constitutional jurisdiction being special and extraordinary should not be exercised in ordinary cases-- .Constitutional jurisdiction was not maintainable in circumstances" .
8. I fully concur with the dictum laid down in the above referred cases when suit is pending on the subject of lis the same cannot be assailed in the writ jurisdiction. In the instant case orders passed by District Officer (Revenue) and Member, Board of Revenue were assailed earlier in civil suit pending before the competent civil court subsequently during the pendency of civil suit writ petition is filed which in the light of dictum laid down in cases supra cannot proceed.
9. In the light of above discussion this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.