' The petitioners in this case are challenging the order of Border Allotment Committee dated 3rd May, 1982 whereby it has upheld the previous allotment of the kotha in dispute in favour of respondent No, 1 vide order dated 15th April, 1961.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners claimed to have acquired the possession of this house on the strength of Annexure which is a receipt showing passing of consideration of Rs, 500.
The petitioners as per Annexure 'A' purchased this house from one Ghulam Rasool son of Allah Rakha, resident of Chutianwala, tehsil and district Kasur in the border belt. This receipt is dated 1st July, 1951. According to the petitioners, they have ever since been in possession and paying chullah tax. The petitioners have bled as Annexure `B' the application of respondent No, 1 Ali Gohar addressed to Checking Committee, Kasur of the Border Allotment Committee dated 24th April, 1960. On this application, a report was made by Halqa Patwari that the evacuee house was in unauthorised occupation of Tufail, Ali Muhammad and Sher Muhammad son of Nawab Din. The house was liable to be allotted to military allottee Ali Gohar. This was approved by the Army Member of the Border Allotment Committee.
3. This matter then again was agitated by respondent No, 1 by approaching the Border Allotment Committee with the complaint that petitioners were his tenants and they were claiming the title in their own right although the house in question stood allotted in his favour since, 1960. He repeated his request for allotment. It was further the case of respondent No, 1 that through the intervention of the Chairman Union Council, in the year 1961 he had paid a sum of Rs, 100 to the petitioners and acquired the possession. The stand taken by Sher Muhammad petitioner was that he was in occupation of the room in dispute as he had purchased it from one Ghulam Rasool. He further challenged the allotment in favour of All Gohar as being bogus and stated that it had not been allotted in a regular manner. It was prayed that his possession, therefore, could not be disturbed.
4. The Border Allotment Committee after hearing the parties and perusal of the record came to the conclusion that Ali Gohar was ex-army man and that he was allottee of agricultural land in the same capacity. It was also noted that Major Iqbal former Chairman Allotment Committee on 15th April, 1961 had allowed the proposal of allotment of this kotha. The Committee was further of the view that no doubt that the order was not couched in a formal manner, but looking at other connected papers, it was discovered that that was normal way of disposing of proceedings by former Chairman, Major Muhammad Iqbal. This fact was not disputed before the Border Allotment Committee. Learned counsel for the Border Allotment Committee has shown me the original files which contain the said order of the Chairman Border Allotment Committee dated 15th April, 1961 and it is found to be in untampered form. This order is written with red pencil. In this set of circumstances it was held by the Border Allotment Committee that the order recorded as "allowed" by the former Chairman Border Allotment Committee was to be construed as regular order. As regards merits of the case of petitioners it was held that Sher Muhammad was tenant of respondent. The B. A. C. Further believed Exh./P. A. Dated 6th October, 1962 which witnessed the delivery of possession to respondent which had been given over to Sher Muhammad as a tenant. It was thus concluded that petitioners had no lawful concern with the room in question and they were directed to vacate it and to deliver the possession to All Gohar respondent No, 1.
5 Learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition sought to argue that the Border Allotment Committee had no jurisdiction in respect of allotment of room/house in the areas of villages falling within the border belt. Secondly, according to him, the allotment order was not by the Border Allotment Committee but only by the Army Member of the Committee. The further objection to the order was that it is not a speaking order but a merely recital "allowed" and therefore being not a speaking order, it had no legal value. A further objection to the validity of the order was that it was passed without notice to the present petitioners. The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the order of Border Allotment Committee 1961 had not been acted upon up to year, 1982. It was thus submitted that the impugned orders of the B.A.C. Of 1982 and 1961 may be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and for the protection of petitioners' possession, an approriate writ be issued. In the alternative, a plea was raised that the room in question vested in the petitioners by operation of law under Settlement Scheme No, VII. This plea is being raised before this Court for the first time as no such ground appears to have been raised before the Border Allotment Committee.
6. I have gone through the contents of this writ petition and find that the petitioners had already filed a civil suit before the learned Civil Judge at Kasur against the action of B. A. C. Ordering their eviction from the room in question. The civil suit, it is admitted by the learned counsel, is still pending. The approach of petitioners to the High Court during the pendency of a civil suit before a competent forum is A misconceived. The petitioners cannot after resort to adequate alternative remedy at ordinary law, invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. If they feel so inclined they can also amend the plaint so as to challenge the allotment if the same is available to them. I am not inclined to encourage the multiplicity of litigation by resort to different forums in respect of same cause of action. Even otherwise, it is not a case in which I am required to decide the disputed questions of facts. The petitioners' case taken at best is of a purchaser from one Ghulam Rasool who is not shown to be armed with any right whatsoever in respect of this evacuee property which falls within the border belt. It is also not denied that the petitioners are tenants of respondent No, 1 with regard to the agricultural land. In such like cases, the matter stands concluded by findings of fact.
' I am not inclined in the facts and circumstances of this case to hold a factual inquiry. The impugned order of 1982 has been passed by the Border Allotment Committee as composed under the law, i,e, both the members of army as well as civil. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have already availed of alternative remedy by filing a civil suit and moreover controversial questions of facts of this nature are ordinarily not determined by the High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.