' The petitioners by way of this writ petition have impugned the order dated the 27th July, 1980 passed by the Collector, Dera Ghazi Khan whereby he cancelled the mutation No, I entered in favour of the petitioners.
' It is inter alia contended that the suit land was allotted in the year 1972 to the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners in due process of law, and the predecessor-in-interest remained in undisturbed possession throughout, and in the year 1974 the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement)
Act, 1958 was repealed, and thereafter the allotment/transfer/title and ownership of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners cannot be re-opened nor there was anything pending prejudicial to the interests of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. The petitioners purchased the property in the year 1979 and are in undisturbed continuous possession of the suit land.
' In the circumstances stated above, it is argued that the Collector had no option but to confirm the mutation which was presented to him and in any case he neither had the jurisdiction to recommend to the Senior Civil Judge for the withdrawal of the decree nor the Senior Civil Judge had the jurisdiction to rescind the decree on the asking of the Collector.
All the legal points which are being urged are based on the assumption of the genuineness of the documents and the facts, which assumption is seriously contradicted and challenged by the respondents.
2. The parawise comments submitted by the respondents state that the disputed piece of land measuring 180 kanals and 1 marla situate in Mauza Choratta Pachad belonging to the Central Government remained in possession of Ahl-e-Islam (Muslims) for the purpose of graveyard since 1956 ; they. Continued their ownership as well as possession in the form of using the land for graveyard ; no one claimed its ownership till August, 1980, when the petitioners tried to get the possession of the land and received the same by way of civil suit ; the property in dispute was to the extent of papers only as per Entry No, 46 in the R. L. II register, whereas the said property since the date of its allotment in the name of Ahl-e-Islam (Muslims), remained in physical possession of the Muslims, factually the entries in the said R. L. II register were manipulated at the instance of the interested persons and those had no legal value ; a report made by one Allah Devaya Shah Patwari on the R. L. II register was a pseudony mouse writing ; the controversy came to the light for the first time when the petitioners, after getting the mutation entered in their favour, went to the spot for obtaining possession of the property in dispute and on becoming aware the Muslims of the city vehemently resisted to it ; the matter had been rectified by cancelling the mutation is favour of the petitioners, under intimation to the civil Court concerned and it was done in pursuance of Government instructions contained vide letter No, 966/78/ 2216/LB, dated 5th September, 1979.
3. This writ petition is liable to dismissal on more than one ground. In the first instance there are alternative remedies provided in the Land Revenue Act and other laws which were and are available to the petitioners and they have not pursued the same Secondly, that this writ petition involves disputed questions of fact and it is not the normal practice of this Court while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction to enter upon the disputed questions of fact. Thirdly, the petitioners have approached this Court with sullied hands as according to the submissions of the respondents the petitioners have committed fraud, forged the documents and got the mutation sanctioned on the basis of forged R. L. II. Register.
' The impugned order has been passed with jurisdiction and it is a trite law that when a Court/authority has jurisdiction to decide a question (i. e. Jurisdiction-territorial, pecuniary or in regard to subject-matter) it has jurisdiction to decide rightly or wrongly both in fact and law, and in this regard I would refer to Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali's case (1) .
4. There being no merit whatsoever, the writ petition is dismissed. On the facts as disclosed the petitioners have abused the process of law for the perpetuation of the alleged fraud and retention of illegal gains, therefore, the petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs, one thousand as costs to each of the respondents. The imposition of the costs does not stop the respondents from initiating criminal prosecution against the petitioners for the offences of forgery, fraud etc. If the facts and circumstances so warrant.
(1) PLD 1973 SC 236