' ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.--- The petitioner has filed this petition, stating therein that an agricultural land Survey No.335/2, area 3-18 acres, is situated in Deh Bair, Taluka Kamber, out of which 0-54 paisa share belonged to one Inayat Ali son of Karam Ali claimant through satisfaction of his claim. In the year 1987 Inayat Ali sold out 1-35 acres of the said land to the petitioner by registered Sale-deed No.426, dated 3-2-1987 and the record of rights was also mutated on 24-5- 1987.
2. It is alleged that respondents Nos.2 to 7 have managed the false and fabricated sale agreement showing themselves the owner of Survey No.335/2 and had sold out the above survey number to respondent No.1 with the active assistance of respondents Nos.8 to 9. Consequently, it is alleged that the respondent No.1 has issued threats to the petitioner of dispossessing him from the above survey number. He further states that the respondents Nos.1 to 7 have no right over the said agricultural land and documents, if any, possessed by them were false and fabricated, hence the same may not be entered in the record of rights and a thorough enquiry be made in this regard. He has prayed as under:---
(a) That this honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondents Nos.1 to 7 not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner by adopting illegal means.
(b) To direct the respondents Nos. 8, 9 and 10 not to make any entry in the record of rights and also cancel the same if any entry has been made by the respondents Nos.8 and 9, otherwise the petitioner will be put to undue litigation.
(c) Award costs.
(d) Any other relief this honourable Court deems fit and proper be awarded to the petitioner under the circumstances of the case.
3. The Counsel for the petitioners was called upon to satisfy regarding the maintainability of the petition, because there is dispute between the two parties over ownership of land and an agreement of sale is also under dispute, so also Revenue Authorities are required not to make entries in record of rights and cancel the entries, which are already made.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner is of the view that this Court by ignoring alternate remedies, in appropriate cases, 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 impugned order being capable, illegal, mala fide and without jurisdiction. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on the case of KESC Labour Union and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2006 PLC 186.
5. On going through the record it appears that there is factual controversy in respect of genuineness or otherwise of the agreement and entries in record of rights. 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. So far restraining the respondents Nos.9 and 10 from keeping of entries in the record of rights is also function of the Revenue Authorities. For that purpose the petitioner has other alternate remedies, one before the Revenue Authorities and other before Civil Court. In this context reliance may be placed on the cases reported as Muhammad Iqbal v. S.A.M. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore PLD 1970 Lahore 614, Wilayat Shah v. District Judge, Kohat 1997 CLC 1796, Fateh Ali v. Province of Balochistan 1997 SCMR 1687 and Ijaz Hussain Suleri v. Registrar 1999 SCMR 2381.
6. The case-law relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner has no application to the circumstances of this case, as in the reported case the impugned order was found, on the very face of it, illegal, mala fide and without jurisdiction, while in case in hand there is factual controversy between the parties, which cannot be gone into in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
7. In view of the above circumstances, we are of the view that the petition is not maintainable, thus same is dismissed in limine along with listed applications. However, petitioner may seek his remedy available to him by other mode of proceeding, if so advised.