' Briefly stated, the facts of the case in hand are that the petitioners used to cultivate the suit land since long. However, after the death of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, the suit land was resumed in favour of the Government of Pakistan under the Martial Law Regulation. Certain mutations were attested in this respect. Since the Land Commission had become the owner of the land in question therefore it allegedly directed the petitioners to deposit the sale consideration in respect of the said land in the Government Treasury. A direction was also issued to the petitioners not to pay the produce to the respondents. It has been alleged further that thereafter the suit land was transferred to the petitioners who became its owners. The petitioners have contended that the respondents, in collusion with the revenue staff, fraudulently changed the Revenue Record of the rights and then instituted a suit for the recovery of the produce against the petitioners.
2. The petitioners submitted that as a counterblast they also instituted a suit for declaration against the respondents in the Civil Court at Mardan which is pending disposal.
3. According to the petitioners the respondents' suit in respect of the recovery of the produce was decreed in the first instance by the Revenue Court. The verdict of the Revenue Court was however challenged by the petitioners by filing an appeal but their appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner which was also dismissed.
Resultantly they approached the Member, Board of Revenue for the redress of their grievance by filing a second revision petition but failed again. Hence this Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and have also gone through the impugned orders carefully.
5. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners conceded and rightly so that the Revenue Courts had the jurisdiction to pass the respective orders. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Court, the lower Appellate Court and the Revisional Court of Additional Commissioner as well as Member, Board of Revenue are not illegal as the same have not been recorded without lawful authority. This writ petition, in our opinion, in the circumstances, is evidently not maintainable.
6. Besides, the fact that an adequate/alternative remedy available to the petitioners, who have admittedly resorted to the same, by filing a suit in respect of the declaration of their title, which is still pending adjudication in the Civil Court at Mardan cannot be lost sight of.
7. This writ petition is not only misconceived but is also frivolous and without any substance. The same is therefore dismissed in limine.