' The necessary facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that Abdul Latif, the predecessor of the present petitioners, and Jalal Din, Respondent No,2, had filed applications before the Colony Assistant/Collector, Khanewal in the year 1982 seeking allotment of Ihata No,207 measuring 9 Marlas and 7 Sarsahis situated in Chak No,129/15-L, Tehsil Mian Channu, District Kanewal. The Revenue Staff conducted an inquiry in respect of the rival claims of the parties and reported that the Ihata in question was not only lying vacate but the same was also available for allotment. It was further reported that both the parties qualified for the purposes of allotment of the said Ihata.
Vide order, dated 18-12-1988, the Colony Assistant/Collector, Khanewal allotted the said Ihata to Abdul Latif, predecessor of the present petitioners, and rejected the application of respondent No,2 in that respect. The Colony Assistant/Collector had observed in the order the Respondent No,2 already owned agricultural land measuring 3 Kanals and 14 Marlas and he was also disqualified to claim allotment of the said Ihata on the basis that he had already, been allotted another Ihata No,53. Respondent No,2 challenged that order of the Colony Assistant/Collector through an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan vide order, dated 2-3- 1989. The reason given by the Additional Commissioner for dismissing Respondnet No,2's appeal was that the plea of Respondent No,2 taken in appeal that he was in possession of the Ihata in question was contradicted by respondent No,2's own application before the Colony Assistant/Collector clearly maintaining that the Ihata was lying vacant. Respondent No,2 assailed the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner as well as the Colony Assistant/Collector before the Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore through a revision petition. During the pendency of that revision petition Abdul Latif, predecessor of the present petitioners, was murdered at Karachi and, resultantly, the present petitioners were impleaded as parties in his place. The Member (Colonies)
Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, seized for that revision petition, called for a report from the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Mian Channu regarding possession of the Ihata in question. On 20-10-1991 the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Mian Channu submitted a report in that regard wherein it was maintained that Respondent No,2 was in possession of the Ihata in question for the last about 6/7 years .By unauthorisedly constructing a house thereon over two Marlas. It was further reported that 11-1/2 Marlas of Ihata No,53 was also in possession of Respondent No,2. On 2- 9-1992 the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore accepted respondent No,2's revision petition, set aside the earlier orders passed by the Colony Assistant/Collector and the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) in favour of the predecessor of the petitioners and ordered the disputed Ihata No,207 to be allotted to respondent No,2. While passing the said order respondent No,2 heavily relied upon the above-mentioned report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner Collector Mian Channu regarding possession of respondent No,2 over Ihata in question for the last about 6/7 years. This revisional order has been assailed before this Court through the present Constitutional petition.
2. In support of this petition it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore had been mainly swayed by the report of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Mian Channu without appreciating that the said report was in direct conflict with respondent No,2's own application submitted for the allotment of the Ihata in question and the stand taken therein. It has further been argued that if respondent No,2 had taken possession of a part of the Ihata in question in a manner which was admittedly illegal and unauthorized then such a possession brought about during the pendency of the proceedings could not have improved the status/qualification of respondent No,2 so as to oust the petitioner's claim. The learned counsel for the petitioners has gone on to argue that respondent No,2 was admittedly in unauthorized occupation of a part of the said Ihata and, thus, he was not entitled to put a premium on his own illegality and could not claim exercise of discretion in his favour. It has lastly been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the revisional forum could have decided the matter on the basis of possession of parties obtaining at the time of submission of applications for allotment before the Colony Assistant/Collector and not according to subsequent improvement in their status or qualification. This, according to the learned counsel, is a cardinal principle governing exercise of revisoinal jurisdiction but unfortunately the same has been ignored by the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue in this case.
3. As against that the learned counsel for Respondent No,2 has supported the impugned order passed by the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue on 2-9-1992. He has also argued that the petitioners did not have the necessary locus standi to institute the present writ petition as the petitioners had never been put in possession of the Ihata in question after the order of allotment in their favour. It has also been contended that the issue raised in the present writ petitioners involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be satisfactorily resolved in Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court. The learned counsel has further maintained that the petitioners have been guilty of suppression of facts and also that the petitioners have adequate alternate remedies available to them for seeking the necessary relief and to call in question the impugned orders passed by the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue. In this connection the learned counsel for the Respondent No,2 has referred to the remedy by way of filing of a civil suit as well as a remedy of filing a review petition before the Board of Revenue itself. He has, thus, canvassed for dismissal of the present writ petition.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record I have no hesitation in concluding that this writ petition must succeed. A bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore on 2-9-1992 shows that while passing the said order the learned Member had placed a wholehearted reliance on the report of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Mian Channu regarding possession of respondent No,2 over the Ihata in question for the last 6/7 years. In this connection the learned Member had completely failed to advert to Respondent No,2's own application originally submitted for the purposes of seeking allotment of Ihata No,207 which categorically maintained that the Ihata in question was not only vacant but also that the same was not in possession of anybody. It goes without saying that a party to litigation could not draw strength from a report of an officer if such a report disclosed facts which were controverted by that party itself in its own documents. Thus, by ignoring this critical aspect of the matter the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, fell in grave error and thereby based his decision on a factor which was not even in accordance with the stand taken by respondent No,2. The Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue also failed to appreciate in this respect that if respondent No,2 had come into possession of the disputed Ihata sometime after filing of the said application by him seeking allotment of that Ihata then that amounted to improvement of the status/qualification of respondent No,2 during the pendency of litigation and such an improvement could not be taken notice of by a revisional forum/Court. Revisional jurisdiction is primarily meant to determine legality, regularity or propriety of a decision or proceeding of a subordinate forum and not to determine the issues involved on the basis of developments which had taken place subsequent to the commencement of a lis or a dispute. Such an exercise by the Member (Colonies) was without lawful authority and, therefore, of no legal effect. I am also not unmindful of the fact that respondent No,2 was admittedly in unauthorized possession of a portion of Ihata in question at the time of decision of his revision petition before the Board of Revenue. A person resorting to such an unauthorized possession for the purposes of improvement of his status/qualification was hardly entitled to an exercise of discretion in his favour. Revisional jurisdiction is essentially a discretionary jurisdiction and by not appreciating this aspect of the matter the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue had again fallen in error.
5. As regards the objection raised by the learned counsel for respondent No,2 to the locus standi of the petitioners for the purposes of institution of the present writ petition suffice it to observe that the petitioners had been ordered to be allotted the Ihata in question by the Colony Assistant/Collector, Mian Channu in the year 1988 and challenge to that order by way of an appeal had been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner in the year 1989. Having been armed with such an order of allotment and confirmation thereof in appeal the petitioners surely possessed sufficient interest in the matter so as to confer locus standi op them to institute a Constitutional petition before this Court at a time when they were deprived of the said allotment through a revisional order.
6. As regards the objection raised by respondent No,2 that the petitioners had adequate alternate remedies available to them in this regard it may again suffice to observe that remedies by way of filing a civil suit or by way of review petition are generally not considered to be adequate alternate remedies for the purposes of Article 199 of the Constitution so as to disentitle a petitioner to file a Constitutional petition before this Court.
7. For what has been discussed above the present writ petition is hereby accepted and the impugned order passed by the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore on 2-9-1992 is hereby declared to be without lawful C authority and of no legal effect. Consequently, the order passed by the Colony Assistant/Collector on 18-12-1988 and the appellate order passed on 2-3- 1989 by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Multan stand revived and restored.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.