1. Petitioners were employees of Pakistan Railways. They were allotted plots of various sizes out of the land owned by Federal Government and leased out to Pakistan Railways Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Faisalabad for an alleged term of ninety-nine years. The land was situated within Municipal limits of Faisalabad. Petitioners contend that they had raised some construction on the plots allotted to them but the Municipal Corporation demolished it without any lawful authortiy supporting its action.
2. At the hearing, it transpired that Pakistan Railways Employees Cooperative Housing Society had already instituted a suit against Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad, Public-at-Large and Faisalabad Development Authority for a mandatory injunction restraining them and their subordinates from causing interference into the lawful business of the society and its possession on the land in dispute by way of encroaching upon it in the shape of a park. It was conceded that a temporary injunction was issued by the trial Court in the above civil suit. Learned counsel submitted that the interim injunction was later confirmed and was in the field. Institution of civil suit by the Cooperative Society and issuance of temporary injunction were not disclosed in the writ petition by the petitioners. Copy of the written statement filed by the defendants in the suit of Cooperative Housing Society was also not placed on file. However, photo copy of the plaint and an order of injunction issued by the trial Court on 7-3-1993 were produced at the hearing.
3. From the above, it was seen that there was a dispute between the parties with respect to immovable property. A suit covering it was already pending in the Civil Court. Petitioners as members of the Cooperative Housing Society were already represented in the Civil Court. It has been repeatedly observed that a regular suit was the appropriate remedy for settlement of title disputes relating to immovable property between the parties and the remedy under Article 199 of the Constitution was not available in such cases, except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority was alleged. The High Court could not legitimately allow its Constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding title disputes relating to immovable property for which remedies under the general law were clearly available. Constitutional jurisdiction was not intended to substitute ordinary remedies by way of a suit available to a litigant. The jurisdiction was special and extraordinary also and should not be exercised in ordinary cases. Facts of the case did not disclose extraordinary features for taking it up in extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court. It was an ordinary civil dispute and Civil Courts were there to attend to it for an effective relief to the petitioners. As observed above, a civil suit was already pending on the subject-matter in dispute.
4. There was no reason to bypass it at the instance. of the petitioners. Upon this view, there was little merit in the writ petition. In consequence, it was dismissed in limine.