1994 PLP 572 (CLC)

Ghulam Kazim Bhutta for Petitioner. Muhammad Ameer Bhatti for Respondent No.l. Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 in person. From owners of the land, the petitioner, and a number of other people (more than 65, mentioned in para. No. 6 of the petition) claim to have purchased residential. plots in a colony, called Basti Shah Ashraf, in the year 1962, and built houses over there thereafter. Recently, however, certain other people have come up with claims of having purchased plots in the same locality from an owner of land. The Revenue Officers are entering an attesting mutations in favour of the subsequent vendees, who have appeared on the scene through fraudulent deals; and even the MDA, which organization had not earlier taken over Basti Shah Ashraf, or developed it as one of its residential colonies, has let loose its officials, who, in order to fleece money from the inhabitants of the locality, are threatening them with ouster from their abodes, One Sher Muhammad, acting as general attorney of Mst. Aneesa, respondent No.4, has now emerged with a claim of ownership in respect of 34 Kanals and 7 Marlas of land, comprised in the said colony, and is pestering and pressing the residents of the locality to make to him payment of price of plots, alienations of which may have to be effected afresh, according to him, through registered deeds or through mutations of sale, as those who had put up themselves earlier as proprietors of the property, and sold away the plots to different people, were only fictitious people, having no title to the property, and having only defrauded the prospective purchasers, by collecting huge amounts.

2. The petitioner .arid his comrades, as is averred, have been flabber gasted and are at a loss to understand how has a person (male or female) emerged as an owner of the land that had been disposed of in as back as 1962, and how could the so‑called owner remain in dark about the developments, having taken place, over about 30 years last, inasmuch as the purchasers of plots had constructed their houses, which process, stretching over years, could not remain a secret.

3. MDA people, Police and Revenue officials have become a privy to the plot, which the poor inhabitants of the locality have fallen prey to and through their blessings and active assistance, fraud is being played upon the residents of the locality, including the petitioner. A direction is sought that all the respondents be restrained from going ahead with their illegal and oppressive designs, aimed at dislodging the inhabitants of the locality and bull‑dozing the entire `Basti'.

4. The nature of the dispute, so manifestly, is such that it cannot straight away be assumed that what is being pleaded by the petitioner represents reality, or that the claim being put up by respondent No. 4 is altogether baseless, and further it cannot also be concluded that the revenue people have no authority to enter mutations of sale of different plots of land, comprised in the colony, at the instance of those who are selling the plots and others who are purchasing the same; and no clear‑cut direction therefore can be issued, prohibiting them from proceeding with the activity, which the law enjoins upon them to perform. Without calling upon the parties to lead evidence, the complicated issue cannot really be resolved. For the exercise in question a civil suit and not a writ petition evidently is the proper remedy. If respondent No.4 is just a swindler, he may also be proceeded against on the criminal plane.

5. Writ petition, in the present nature, is not only misconceived, it is also plainly incompetent, and it is therefore dismissed. AA./A‑510/L Petition dismissed.