1. ' KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.--By this petition, petitioners challenged notice dated 3-10-1987 issued by Mukhtiarkar Samaro in pursuance of the orders of Deputy Commissioner, Tharparkar dated 30-9- 1987 informing the petitioners about the date of hearing of Miscellaneous Application filed by Mr. Abdul Aziz Khan, Advocate, on behalf of respondent No,3 for cancellation of sale and mutation effected in favour of the petitioners.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners purchased 320-20 acres of agricultural land situated in Deh 6-Hiral Taluka Samaro District Tharparkar from Mumtaz Hussain and others by way of statements recorded by the Mukhtiarkar Samaro who after recording the statement of sale mutated their names in the record of rights sometime in the years 1985 and 1986. As per averments of the petition, the petitioners got the possession of the land in question and are enjoying the same. It is stated . That petitioners after receiving the notice from Mukhtiarkar, they made enquiry from the office of respondent No,1 and came to know that Mr. Abdul Aziz Khan, Advocate on behalf of respondent No,3, namely Sindh Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd. Had given a notice to respondent No,1 stating therein that the vendors, from whom the petitioners had purchased the land, are defaulters of Nara Cooperative Society and as such they were not competent to alienate the land and consequently mutations effected by the Mukhtiarkar Samaro were illegal and void. In the petition, petitioners stated that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers of the land for a valuable consideration without notice of charge or any other encumbrance upon the land. It is further stated that even otherwise the vendors from whom the petitioners had purchased the land still got 619-00 acres of land in the same Deh which by itself is sufficient security in respect of outstanding of the Society. On the basis of these facts, the petitioners challenged the show-cause notice issued by respondent No,4.
3. ' Heard Mr. Muhammad Ismail H. Memon, learned Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Masood A.
4. Noorani, learned Additional Advocate-General for official respondents. Mr. Abdul Aziz Khan, learned Advocate for respondent No,3 and Mr. Abdul Sattar Kazi, learned Advocate for respondent No,7.
5. ' Mr. Muhammad Ismail H. Memon, learned Advocate for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers of the land in question and have no notice of charge or encumbrance if any on the land purchased by them. It is further argued that the vendors are holding other lands in the same Deh from the sale of which, outstanding of the respondent No,3 against the vendors can be adjusted and as such the notice issued by the respondent No,4 is liable to be set aside. He further contended that the respondent No,1 being a Revenue Officer could exercise jurisdiction under section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, but the case of the respondent No,3 was not covered by any provision of the Land Revenue Act and as such, impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioners in support of his contention that a Constitutional petition against the show-cause notice is maintainable, relied upon the cases of (1) Muhammad Afzal Khan v. Karachi Development Authority PLD 1984 Karachi 114; CAR TUNES v. Incon Tax Officer, Circle V 1989 PTD 478; M.R. Sons v. I.T.O. 1989 PTD 1010; (4) Rice Export Corporation v. Karachi Metropolitan Corp.
7. PLD 1990 Karachi 186; (5) Zeshan Builders v. Karachi Building Control Authority 1992 MLD 2259; (6)
8. Mian S.M. Yousuf Baghpatee v. 'Kar. Building Control Authority etc. 1993 CLC 2491; (7) Attock Cement Pak. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Quetta 1999 PTD 1892 and (8) Platinum Commercial Bank Ltd. v.
9. Government of Sindh 2003 MLD 279 (Karachi).
10. ' On the other hand Mr. Abdul Aziz Khan, learned Advocate for the respondent No,3 has placed reliance on Sections 8-A and 8-B of Cooperative Banks and Cooperative Societies (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance, 1966 and argued that alienation of the property by a person owing the loan from Cooperative Bank is void transaction, and change in the record of right ought to have been reversed.
11. ' We have taken in consideration arguments advanced by learned Advocates as well as taken in consideration case-law relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioners. We are in full agreement with the principle laid down in the case-law relied upon by the learned advocate for the Petitioner. In all the case laws relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioners, it has been held that if a show-cause notice has been issued without lawful authority and jurisdiction, the Court can in exercise of its writ jurisdiction struck down such show-cause notice. There is no cavil to this proposition but none of the case-law relied upon by the learned advocate is of any help to the matter in hand. In the instant petition, the petitioners have failed to point out how the notice, of hearing issued by the respondent No,4, is without jurisdiction. The petitioners have not denied that the person from whom they have purchased the land in question, has taken loan from Cooperative Bank and has committed default in payment of said loan. Section 8-B of the Cooperative Bank and Cooperative Societies (Repayment of Loan) Ordinance, 1966, put restriction on the alienation of the properties by a person owing the loan immediately after the enforcement of the said Ordinance.
12. The Ordinance itself provided that alienation of property by default as void and not transfer any right, title or interest in the property of debtors unless the loan, due against the debtors, has been repaid.
13. ' The question whether the petitioners are bona fide purchasers or whether the respondent No,4 can in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Land Revenue Act, reverse the entry in the record of rights, can be adjudicated by the forum provided under Land Revenue Act and as such we are not making any comments on it.
14. ' The petitioner failed to point out how the notice of date of hearing issued by Respondent No,4 is without jurisdiction. In the case of Shagufta Begum v. I.T.O. PLD 1989 Supreme Court 360, Honourable Supreme Court has dismissed the petition with an observation that after receiving the show case notice, the remedy should be exhausted before the Departmental forum unless it can be established that the show-cause notice issued with some mala fide intention and has been issued without jurisdiction. Normally Court would not like to interfere in exercise of its writ jurisdiction to call in question show-cause notice as a matter of rule. Parties have to exhaust the remedy available to them under law and thereafter if feel aggrieved may invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of Constitution of Pakistan. However, if show-cause notice has been issued with mala fide intention and which on the face of it has been issued without any lawful authority then even if alternate remedy is available Court can strike down such notice in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, instead of asking the parties to undergo agony of departmental appeals, revisions etc. ' With the above observation the Petition is dismissed however, with no order as to cost.