1. ' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---This is a , Constitutional petition under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan filed by the petitioner stating therein that she is the owner of building property bearing No,20-C, Saba Commercial Street 'A', Defence Housing Authority, Karachi, consisting of three flats and two shops wherein she has been residing since 1988 after the completion of construction work and on 7-9-1987 the petitioner was served with a notice under section 68 of the Cantonment Act by respondent No,1 informing her that the formal would consider the valuation and assessm ent, entered into assessment list of her said property inviting objections in writing from her within the stated period, in case it was disputed, to which the petitioner could not file objection as her husband was abroad, however, on 9-1-1988 the said respondent's assessment committee met wherein petitioner's husband participated and made submissions against the proposed assessm ent of Rs,24,000 per annum for each of flats and shop made in respect of her said property from 21-8-1987 but the submissions of petitioner's husband were turned down. The petitioner preferred an appeal under section 84 of Cantonment Act, 1924 against the excessive assessm ent of tax in respect of her property before Deputy Commissioner, Karachi-South, in the capacity of Appellate Authority but the same was dismissed hence the petitioner has filed this petition praying therein to declare that the assessment order of respondent No, 1 and the order.
2. Dated 10-6-1989 of respondent No,2 dismissing the petitioner's appeal were null and void and against the principles of natural justice within further prayer that the respondent No,2 be directed to dispose of the petitioner's appeal in accordance with law.
3. The case of the respondent No,1 as disclosed in the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner has other adequate remedy of revision under section 277 of Cantonment Act, therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable and the assessment made by the respondent in respect of the petitioner's property is just and proper as the same was made keeping in view the market rental value of the properties situated in the same locality and further assessment made in respect of petitioner's said property is neither mala fide nor erroneous.
4. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties present, perused the impugned order of respondent No,2 and Annexures filed with the memo. Of petition.
5. ' Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the assessment of property of the petitioner is excessive in comparison to 'A' Class construction in the same locality as such is discriminatory, therefore, liable to be set aside in this petition, considering that the building in question is built as 'C' Class construction.
6. ' Mr. Ainuddin Khan, learned A.A.-G. For respondent No,2, has submitted that the adequate remedy of filing revision is available to the petitioner under section 277 of the Cantonment Act hence Constitutional petition is not maintainable and further that the question of excessive assessment in comparison to the other properties of the locality is a disputed question of fact, therefore, this Court cannot go into such disputed question of fact hence the Constitutional petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. So far as the contention of petitioner's counsel that the assessment made is excessive in comparison to other properties of the locality, it would admittedly require investigation into the facts and would need evidence to be appraised of. There is no material on record from which it could be said that the assessm ent made in respect of the property in dispute, was excessive, thereby discriminatory, in comparison to the other properties in the same locality. This Court cannot assume the role of Investigating Officer to enquire into the disputed question of fact which would require taking and recording of evidence: The Constitutional jurisdiction is primarily intended for providing an expeditious remedy in a case where the impugned action of the execution authority can be established without any elaborate enquiry into the complicated or disputed facts.
8. There is nothing apparent on record from where one can say that the assessment made by respondent No,1 is a mala fide act considering that provisions of law empower the respondents to make an assessm ent in respect of properties keeping in view the gross annual rent which could reasonably be earned in respect of property in question during the financial year and other properties in the same locality. The said Act of assessment of the respondents cannot be said to be void or discriminatory in the circumstances as no material has been brought on record by the petitioner to show as to how it was void or discriminatory. On the contrary Chapter V of the Cantonment Act, 1925 containing sections from 60 to 105 deal with the taxation and assessment of the properties which empower the respondents to make assessment of the property falling within their jurisdiction.
9. ' The next contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner has other adequate remedy of revision under section 277 of Cantonment Act, therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable.
10. ' Section 277 of Cantonment Act reads as under:--- "(1) Where an appeal from an order made by the Board has been disposed of by the District Magistrate either party to the proceedings may, within thirty days from the date thereof, apply through the Competent Authority, to the Central Government, or to such authority as the Central Government may appoint in this behalf, for a revision of the decision.
(2) The provisions of this Chapter with respect to appeals shall apply, as far as may be, to application for revisions made under this section."
11. We do not find merit in the contention as remedy by way of revision cannot be claimed as a matter of right hence same cannot be treated as alternate adequate remedy consequently mere fact a revision was competent would not prevent this Court from exercising the Constitutional jurisdiction if the impugned orders are without jurisdiction or are in violation of some law. Reference may be made to (i) Mst. Zahida Begum v. Wing Commander Ziauddin Ahmad and five others (1983 CLC 187 D.B. Karachi) wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that remedy by way of revision, neither can be claimed as a matter of right or treated as an alternate adequate remedy and there would be no bar to the Constitutional petition mere fact that revision was competent and (ii) Mst. Hussain Bibi v. Haji Muhammad Din and three others 1976 SCM R 395. It may also be pointed out that revision would lie only on the point of law but in the instant petition disputed question of facts are involved requiring an elaborate enquiry and recording of evidence, therefore, filing of revision could not be termed to be alternate adequate remedy in the circumstances of the case.
12. ' The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that principles of natural justice were infringed as the petitioner's counsel was not heard by respondent No,2.
13. ' We do not find substance in the said contention as well, considering that the petitioner filed the appeal and the impugned order mentioned that her counsel was heard, therefore, it could not be said that principles of natural justice were contravened or violated.
14. ' In view of aforesaid reasoning's we do not find substance in the petition which is hereby dismissed.
15. ' These are the reasons in respect of short order announced by us on 4-5-1999.