2002 PLP 1804 (CLC)

(i) Declare that the orders of respondent No.1, dated 11‑12‑1991 and 11‑2‑1993 and the issuance of Sanads are illegal, void and of no legal effect. (ii) Direct respondent No.1 to cancel his illegal orders and the Sanads issued to respondents 5 to 52. (iii) Suspend the operation of the impugned orders and Sanads pending disposal of the petition. (iv) Direct respondents Nos.2 and 3 to suspend forthwith from carrying on any construction on Survey No.33, Deh Manghopir, Naclass and/or Revenue Survey No.4. (iv‑a) Restrain the respondents 5 to 52 from alienating transferring the possession of their respective residential quarters, and/or raising any further instructions on the residential quarters. (v) Grant such other or further relief as this Honourable Court deem fit. (vi) Grant costs of the petition. "

2. On 5‑3‑2002 the learned counsel for the petitioner placed a copy of minutes of the meeting of Board of Revenue held on 11‑2‑2002 regarding the encroachment on the State land in former District (West), Karachi.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the grievance of the petitioner is likely to be redressed in the ensuing meeting.

4. The representative of the petitioner also attended the meeting, presided over by the Member, Land Utilisation Board of Revenue. According to the copy of minutes, the following decisions were taken in respect of the petitioner: "(1) The Sanads issued under the Gothabad Act on the land of Javeedan Cement Factory may be cancelled by District Officer (Revenue). (2) 30 years lease on Javeedan Cement Factory land may also be cancelled. (3) Javeedan Cement Factory will plead their cases before the Committee, regarding the cases of allotments made by Board of Revenue on 99 years lease on their land."

5. On 28‑3‑2002 all the learned Advocates for the parties agreed that, disputed questions of facts require determination for the purpose of adjudicating upon the issues involved in the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that decision No.1 taken in the meeting, dated 11‑2‑2002 referred to above, shows that the Sanads were granted to the respondents for the lands which were area y on lease with the petitioner. However, he conceded that, it is a question of fact, as to how much land granted to the respondents forms part of the land already leased out to the petitioner. After conceding that the determination of the disputed questions of facts, require recording of evidence, he contended that the Nazir of this Court may be appointed to conduct the site inspection and submit the report. He further submitted that, there are certain decisions to the effect chat while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction, the High Court can consider certain questions of facts as well.

6. We partly agree with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that, while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, this Court can consider some questions of facts as well. However, we are not persuaded to agree with his submission that, the site inspection by the Nazir of this Court can be a substitute for the recording of evidence. The site inspection can be conducted for proper appreciation of the facts but it can never be a substitute for the evidence and cannot be taken as evidence per se. We are further of the view that, the extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction conferred tinder Article 199 of the Constitution, cannot be converted into the original civil jurisdiction wherein the pleadings of the parties are taken on record, issues are framed, evidence furnished by the parties is recorded and thereafter the disputed questions of facts are determined.

7. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that, for the purpose of implementation of the decision taken by the Board of Revenue for the cancellation of Sanads, issued under the Gothabad Act on the land of petitioner, the petitioner may approach the proper forum. The disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in this petition and consequently the petition stands dismissed, alongwith listed applications.

8. After, hearing the learned counsel for the parties on 28‑3‑2002, the petition was dismissed by a short order and these are the detailed reasons in support thereof. S.A.K./J‑43/K Order accordingly.