' AJMAL MIAN, J.--The petitioners through this petition have prayed for the following reliefs:-- (i)Declaring the said Standing Order No, 73, dated 7-5-1983 (i.e, Annexure-B) of the respondent 3, as illegal, mala fide, ultra vires, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
(ii) Declaring that the said land in the compartment Nos. 2, 3, 4, 10 and 18 in the said Kathore Forest so granted to the respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 under the said Standing Order No, 73 is illegal, male fide and without lawful authority.
(iii) Permanent injunction restraining the respondents from doing any further act in implementation of the impugned grant of lease of the said land to the respondents 5 to 7 under the Standing Order No, 73.
(iv) Cost of this Petition to the petitioners,
(v) Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper to the petitioners,
2. The brief facts' leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioners are old residents village Agedino Gaho, Deh Ilayat Gaho, Kathore Forest, Taluka Ghorabari, District Thatta/lt has been averred by the petitioners that the official respondent in violation of the Standing Order has granted Forest land to respondents Nos. 5 to 7 and thereby also infringed the petitioners' alleged easement rights. It may be observed that prior to the filing of the present petition, Constitutional Petition No, D-299 of 1984 was filed, in which at the time of regular hearing the Supreme Court case of Anjuman Arain Bhera v. Abdul Rashid and others reported in PLD 1982 SC 308 was cited by the learned counsel for the respondents in support of the contention that the petitioners acting pro bono public had no locus standi to call in question the transfer of property in favour of a third party without showing the infringement of the personal right thereupon, learned counsel for the petitioners had withdrawn the above petition on 10-9-1984 subject to the right to file fresh petition.
3. It may be observed that in the previous petition the petitioners had not made any averment as to the infringement of their any alleged specific easement right. However, in the present petition they have made averment inter alia in para. 5 (vii), in which it has been averred that the petitioners and old villagers shall be deprived of their ages old and recognized rights and amenities of pasture for cattle, passages, watercourse, collection of fallen-wood for fuel and cutting of brush-wood for hutment fencing etc. so enjoyed by them. The official respondents have filed counter-affidavit denying the factum that the petitioners have ever enjoyed any rights averred by them in their petition. The question, whether the petitioners have acquired easement rights in view of the denial by the respondents have become a disputed question of fact warranting recording of evidence. In our view the disputed question of fact of this nature cannot be resolved in a writ petition. The appropriate remedy if any, for the petitioners is to file a suit.
' We, therefore, dismiss the above Petition in limine.