ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

C.P No. D- 303 of 2011

______________________________________________________________________ DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________

1. For orders on O/objection Flag ‘A’

2. For katcha Peshi.

3. For hearing of CMA 511/2011

22-02-2016.

Mr. Sarfraz A.Akhund, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Shafique Ahmed Leghari State Counsel.

O R D E R

Learned counsel for petitioner, has candidly submitted that the similar petition No.2437/2010 has been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2016 and submits that instant petition may also be disposed of in similar terms, however, requests that the respondents may be directed to decide the issue regarding jurisdiction first, before deciding the case on merits. Learned State Counsel, in view of hereinabove facts as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, does not oppose the disposal of instant petition in terms of aforesaid order passed by this Court in the above said petition.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State counsel and perused the record as well as order dated 02.02.2016. It will be advantageous to reproduce order dated 02.02.2016, which reads as follows:

“Learned counsel for petitioner was directed to satisfy this Court as to maintainability of instant petition, whereby, it has been prayed that appeal filed under section 161 of Land Revenue Act by the respondent No.1 before the then Executive District Officer (Revenue) Sukkur, against the Grant order of Assistant Revenue Officer, may be declared to be corum-non-judice, hence not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner in response submits that since the appeal was filed after lapse of thirty years from grant of land and ten years from the date of petitioner’s ownership, hence the appeal under section 161 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 was not maintainable, therefore, instant petition was filed to restrain the appellate authority from exercising such jurisdiction. However, it has been submitted that the petitioner will not press instant petition, and will raise all such objections including the objection regarding jurisdiction before appellate authority, and in case of any adverse order, will seek further remedy in accordance with law.

Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed as not pressed along with listed application, however, the petitioner is at liberty to seek his remedy in accordance with law”.

Instant petition is dismissed along with listed application, in the aforesaid terms.

J U D G E

Irfan/PA J U D G E