1. ' ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.---Petitioner Ilawaluddin Gopang through this petition has prayed for the following reliefs:-- That this Honourable Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondent No,4 to conduct an enquiry into the matter of false and fictitious grant of S. No,35, Deh Ali Sher Gopang, area 04-09 acres, in favour of a dead person respondent No,7 and submit such report before this Honourable Court.
2. To restrain the respondents from granting S. No,35 of Deh Ali Sher Gopang being within 20-chains of village and to implement the order dated: 21-8-1978 in its letter and spirit and further restrain the respondents from atienating and interfering with the above property in any way directly or indirectly by themselves or through agents without due course of law.
(c) Award costs of the petition.
(d) Any other equitable relief be granted to the applicant.
3. As per contents of the petition, the case of the petitioner is that an agricultural land bearing survey No,35 of Deh Ali Sher Gopang, area 4-09 acres was granted to respondent No,7 Rasool Bux Brohi on harap conditions by the Barrage Department in 1978 and against that grant petitioner's father Arbab Ali Gopang filed review petition before the Barrage Department. Consequently, vide order dated 21-8-1978 the grant of the said land was revoked and the grant order in favour of respondent No,7 was recalled holding that the said land was within 20 chains of the village and such remarks/cancellation note was put by respondent No, 1/Mukhtiarkar, Estate, Kamber. It is further stated that still the respondents Nos.6 and 7 are claiming survey No,35 to be their property. The case of the petitioner is that on the application of his brother a Rubkari dated 30-8-2010 was issued by respondent No,1 showing that the said land was granted to respondent No,6 Ghulam Hussain Brohi and such T.O. Form was also issued on 20-7-2010. It is further stated that an application was moved to respondent No,1 for cancellation of T.O. Form issued in favour of respondent No,7, who had expired about 30 years back, on or about in the year 1980/81. As per petitioner, the respondents taking undue advantage of burning of revenue record during the riots of 27th December, 2007 have prepared false and fabricated documents in favour of respondent No,7.
4. ' On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General, appearing for the official respondents Nos.1 to 5 has stated that the petition is not maintainable, as the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction.
5. ' Mr. Gulab Rai Jessrani, learned advocate appearing for respondents Nos.6 and 7 has contended that the land in question was granted to respondent No,7 and that the respondent No,7 was never called by the Barrage authorities in connection with any review petition allegedly filed by father of the petitioner against the grant of the land. He further contended that the order dated 21-8-1978 in fact does not exist in the field as it was never passed. Lastly, he submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, as the enquiry of the nature being sought by the petitioner cannot be ordered by this Hon'ble Court under the writ jurisdiction and such question can only be decided by the Civil Court.
6. ' The counsel for the petitioner was also called upon to satisfy regarding the maintainability of this petition that how the enquiry sought in this petition could be ordered by this Court to be made under writ jurisdiction, which requires recording of evidence by the competent Civil Court.
7. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner is of the view that this Court by ignoring alternate remedies is not precluded from exercising its jurisdiction and entertaining the petition directly. He further contends that such exercise in a constitutional petition can be exercised if the act of the official respondents is illegal, mala fide and without jurisdiction.
8. On going through the record it appears that the petitioner claims that the grant of the land in question was revoked by the Barrage authorities vide order 21-8-1978, while the respondents Nos.6 and 7 have denied the very existence of the said order. Therefore, there appears factual controversy in respect of genuineness or otherwise of the said order. The factual controversy could not be determined by exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 and the said controversy requires probe and evidence in proof and disproof thereof, which exercise is not permissible in writ jurisdiction. For that purpose the petitioner has other alternate remedy by way of approaching the Civil Court. Our such view is fortified by the decisions in the cases reported as Muhammad lqbal v.
9. S.A.M. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore, PLD 1970 Lahore 614, Wilayat Shah v.
10. District Judge, Kohat, 1997 CLC 1796, Fateh Ali v. Province of Balochistan, 1997 .SCMR 1687 and Ijaz Hussain Suleri v. Registrar, 1999 SCMR 2381.
11. ' In the case in hand, since factual controversy is involved, which cannot be decided in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction? Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, we are of the view that the petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed along with listed applications. However, petitioner may seek his remedy available to him under the law, if so advised.
12. ' Above are the reasons of our short order passed in Court today.