' The case of the petitioners is that they have made an application to the District Collector on 2-11- 1991 averring therein that evacuee land in village Mari Thakhran (Mustafabad) Tehsil Kamoki District Gujranwala has been allotted to them alongwith their mother Mst. Rahim Bibi against their verified claim and they were unaware of this allotment. One Abdul Aziz Qureshi through a fictitious and fabricated power of attorney in the name of one Aziz Muhammad son of Shah Muhammad respondent No.12, got the land of the petitioner transferred in his name and in the name of another person namely Ghulam Hussain son of Khushi Muhammad respondent No.3 through mutations. It was prayed that the said mutation and the subsequent mutations be reviewed and cancelled. The District Collector vide his order dated 20-8-1992 dismissed the application of the petitioner with the observation that these mutations have been incorporated in the Revenue Record for a long time and the petitioners have been sleeping over their rights. They must seek their remedy through the Civil Court. Their request had also been turned down by the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala vide his order dated 26-7-1993 and the revision petition filed by the revision petitioner has also been met with the same fate by Member Board of Revenue and through his order dated 20-7-2000.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
3. There was a question of validity of power of attorney and the sanctioning of mutation on the basis of a fabricated document, the general power of attorney. The request made before the District Collector was for cancellation of the transaction/mutations as result of fraud and fabricated document.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner& has contended that the Settlement Department has declared the petitioners alongwith their mother the allottee of the land but the allotment has not been correctly entered in the Revenue Record in their favour. The Revenue hierarchy upto the Board of Revenue declined the prayer of the petitioner with the observation that there is intricate question of law and facts, which could not be determined through summary proceedings. The grievance of the petitioners could be redressed by the Civil Court, which is competent forum.
5. It is an admitted position that the matter involved in the writ petition pertains to the question of fact, which requires recording of evidence and examining of record. This Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot interfere in such-like matter as laid down in the case of Muhammad Younas Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary and others (1993 SCM R 618), Benedict F.D., Souza v. Karachi Building Control Authority and three others (1989 SCM R 918) and Federation of Pakistan and 2 others v. Major (Rtd.) Muhammad Sabir Khan (PLD 1991 SC 476).
The respondents have validly directed the petitioners to resort the alternate remedy available to them. As per provision of para. 7.30 of Land Record MSnual, where there are long standing entries in the Revenue Record and question of law and facts is involved, the revenue functionaries cannot correct these entries and the party has to approach the Civil Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted with the above situation, could not persuade this Court to interfere with the impugned order passed by the revenue functionaries.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this petition being devoid of force is dismissed in limine with the direction to the petitioner to avail of alternate remedy available to him under the law.