' Writ Petitions Nos. 2372/1983, 2373/1983, 2374/1983 and 2375/1983, present identical facts and can conveniently be disposed of by one order.
2. An area of land measuring 4 Kanals 8 Marlas bearing Field No. 4389/3387/3287/1217, situate in the Revenue Estate of Bhekewal, Tehsil and District Lahore, is in dispute between the parties. Brief history of the land, subject-matter of dispute; for appreciation of contentions raised is that land comprised in Field No.1217 measuring 65 Kanals 10 Merles, was owned at one time, by Atta Muhammad son of Qutab Din. Out of the aforesaid land, he alienated a parcel of land, measuring 20 Kanals 1 Marla to Dr. Shastri, a Hindu, by religion, before partition of the Sub-Continent. Khasra No.1217 was then bifurcated into two parts; No.1217/1 measuring 20 Kanals 1 Marla and No. 1217/2 represented the unalienated portion. Land measuring 20 Kanals 1 Marla comprised in Field No.1217/1 was treated As evacuee property, as its Hindu owner left for India on account of disturbances taking place in the wake of the partition. Vide Notification dated 24-1-1961 land comprised in entire Khasra No.1217/2, 5 Kanals 1 Marla out of Khasra No.1217/1, was as a result of acquisition, given to Science College, Lahore. Science College, is in possession of the aforesaid land. It so happened, that land measuring 5 Kanals 1 Marla could not be mutated in the name of Sicence College by the Revenue Authorities. In the absence of the mutation supporting change, land bearing Khasra No.1217/1, in course of time, came to be recorded in the name of the Central Government in place of its previous evacuee owner. Settlement Department, relying on the entries existing in the Revenue Records treating it to be "available property" allotted the same to several persons. In this manner, predecessor-in interest of the present petitioners came to hold and acquire title to the land in dispute. Petitioners made frantic efforts to locate their land. In this attempt, they approached the Lahore Development Authority with request to acquire their land, announce its award and make payment of the compensation. Lahore Development Authority was also requested to grant exemption in respect of the plot of land.. L.D.A. on its part showed its helplessness, since the land in dispute, according to them, already stood acquired for Science College in the year 1961 and, was, since then in occupation of the aforesaid educational institution. So, when the petitioners got neither land, nor, its compensation, they placed this title dispute before High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction in these four petitions and requested for its decision by issuance of an appropriate writ/direction of a like nature compelling L.D.. A. to acquire land and pay its compensation. High Court, on several hearings, with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the revenue staff etc. attempted to thrash out this complicated title issue so much so that land subject-matter of the dispute, was got demarcated on site by a Revenue Officer. Demarcation report is on file.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. It has been contended on behalf of writ petitioners that 'the land in dispute, was owned by the petitioners, and they are entitled to its compensation from the Lahore Development Authority. Though the land was in possession of the Science College as is evident from the Demarcation Report, yet a direction be issued to the College to deliver its possession to the Lahore Development Authority to enable it to proceed with its acquisition. Learned counsel for the Lahore Development Authority has pointed out that since the land allegedly owned by the petitioners had been acquired years back for the Science College, Lahore Development Authority cannot and should not be compelled to give its award and make payment of compensation for the land which stood, already acquired. He also urged that parties were at serious dispute on facts and in the case of this dispute as to the title of the property, it can be more appropriately decided in another forum, namely civil Court. Land claimed to be in the ownership of the petitioners, per Demarcation Report, was in possession of Science College.
College, in its own right legally claimed, this piece of land on account of acquisition made in the year 1961.
4. I have given due consideration to the contentions raised by the parties in the light of the available material. On of the facts presented, a clear picture as to the title dispute comes in the fore-front. Question of title in case of dispute cannot be determined in proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution read with Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. Such questions have to be attended to and decided in appropriate proceedings taken for this purpose. Where an elaborate investigation on facts will have to be made with a view to adjudicate on the rights of the parties, High Court in its constitutional A jurisdiction cannot obviously adjudicate the same. Forum in extraordiary jurisdiction is not appropriate for deciding disputed questions of facts or title in such cases. Other remedies, as observed above, that may be open must be sought. Similar considerations prevail in the case in hand. Proper and appropriate remedy, to my mind for decision of this title dispute, is the civil suit by the petitioners. Present title dispute, cannot be resolved, without proper pleadings, and evidence in from this normal rule that where facts are seriously disputed in regard constitutional jurisdiction. No ground exists for making a departure 1 to title the parties, have to approach for resolution of such a dispute to the civil Court. The result is that petitions fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.