BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---A writ petition filed by Ch. Muhammad Mahmood, appellant herein, calling in question the order of allotment of a plot in Mirpur Town to respondent No.1, Aurangzeb has been dismissed by the High Court and the appellant was granted leave to appeal in light of the submissions that the High Court had grossly misread the record of the case.
2. The point in dispute in the case is short. The appellant claims that he was allotted plot No. l-B, sub-sector E-3, Part-II, on 29th of June 1981, by the Allotment Committee of Mirpur, Development Authority. Subsequently the sub--sector was transferred to the Municipal Committee Mirpur, now a Corporation, which prepared a new scheme and marked a new plot on the same location giving it a new number, namely, 119-E showing it to be in sub-sector E-3, Part I. It is claimed that the place is the same and that by doing so allotment made in favour of the appellant has been rendered non- existent, although the plot had been allotted in due course of law, he had paid the price of the land and had also taken over possession. So far as the factum of allotment and payment of price is concerned it is evidenced by documents and receipts and is not disputed.
3. Both the parties filed documents. At a later stage of the proceeding the appellant moved an application before the High Court that he wanted to file certified copies of some documents of which uncertified copies had already been placed on the record. This application was accepted.
4. While deciding the case the learned Judge, who was seized of the matter, observed in paragraph 7 of the judgment that pivotal question in controversy was whether Plot No. 119-E allotted in the name of respondent No. t is marked at a place where the appellant's plot was located. After examining the documents placed on the record the learned Judge reached the conclusion that the appellant had failed to establish his case. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties we have gone through the record available in the High Court file and find that the finding recorded by the learned Judge in the High Court is not correct.
5. Annexure 'P/3' is a certified copy of the part plan of sub-Sector E-3 Part-II. Another certified copy of the same document was subsequently filed, with the permission of the Court, and is marked as '
P/ 19' . In this part plan two plots have been shown each having measurement of 90 x 50. One is marked as 1/A and other is 1/B. On the back side of the plots site for Police Post is shown. On the western side of the Plot No. l/B a nullah is shown. If one moves from west to east the nullah comes first, then comes Plot No.1/A and then Plot Nol/B. This number was marked when the allotment to Ch. Muhammad Mahmood was made. As already mentioned, when Plot No. 119-E sub--Sector E-3, Part-I, was allotted -to Aurangzeb a new part plan was prepared which is in the file as Annexure 'P/20'. In this site plan also a mullah and a Police Post are shown. The plan shows that if one moves from west to east after the nullah there is Plot No.119-E and then further east is Plot No.119-D. On back of the site there is land reserved for Police Post. A comparison of the two site plans leads to unmistakable result that the location of Plot No. l/B and Plot No. 119-E is the same, only the number of plots and phase is different. Another document which also leads to the same conclusion is possession chit given to respondent Auranzeb which on its reverse side contains a map of the place where his plot is situated. In this plan there is a nullah and on the eastern side of the nullah is plot No .119-D and then is shown Plot No. 119-E. Place for Police Post is duly shown on the back side of these plots.
6. In paragraph 7 of the judgment learned Judge of the High Court observed that part plan showing Plot No. l/B and 1/A marked by the Overseer of the Mirpur Development Authority was inadmissible in evidence and could not be relied upon. We may observe that the learned Judge failed to take note of the fact that there was another copy of the same document which was marked as Annexure 'P/3'. It was duly attested by an Overseer of the Municipal Committee Mirpur.
The learned Judge also failed to take note of the fact that amongst the documents which the learned Judge allowed the appellant to place on record yet another copy of the same document is placed as Annexure 'P/19'. It is attested by the Town Planner of the Mirpur Development Authority.
Due to this omission the learned Judge reached a conclusion which was not correct. '
7. It was also observed in the judgment under appeal that such disputed questions could not be resolved by this Court in writ jurisdiction. We may observe-that the questions involved in the present case can be easily resolved in light of the documentary evidence produced by the parties.
Even otherwise where no other adequate remedy is available it is the duty of the Court exercising writ, jurisdiction to decide disputed questions of fact if it is possible to do so in light of affidavit or other evidence produced by the parties.
Consequently, we accept the appeal and vacate the order of the High Court and order acceptance of the writ petition filed by Ch. Muhammad Mahmood. We hold that Ch. Muhammad Mahmood is allottee of the same plot over which subsequently Plot No.119-E was marked and allotted to Aurangzeb who transferred it to Daswandi Khan, one of the respondents, and that the allotment to Aurangzeb of the plot already allotted to Ch. Muhammad Mahmood was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. However, if the Municipal Corporation accommodates respondent Aurangzeb, now represented by Daswandi Khan, by giving him an alternate plot it will be free to do so. The appellant would have his costs throughout from the Municipal Corporation. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.