IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Revision Appln. No. S- 49 of 2017.

Muhammad Hassan Junejo                                 …………...Applicant.

Versus

Nawab Ali and others                                           ...…..….Respondents.

Mr. Naushad Ali Tagar, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. Mumtaz Ali Panhwar, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

Mr. Sharafuddin Kanher, A.P.G.

Date of hearing:                  07.05.2018.

Date of Order :                    07.05.2018.

O R D E R

Amjad Ali Sahito, J.- The applicant has assailed the impugned order dated 03.08.2017, passed by learned VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana. Through the impugned order, the learned Judge has dismissed Criminal Complaint No.07 of 2017, filed by the Applicant under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that complainant is owner of agricultural land bearing S.No.69/2 area 0-30½   ghuntas, S.No.62/1, area 0-20 ghuntas total area 01-10 ½ acre situated in Deh Sonheri Rayati, Taluka Bakrani, district Larkana. Respondents No.1 to 3 alongwith some criminal persons came at his lands and issued threats of dire consequences and restrained him from coming at his land, hence he moved complaint to the SSP Larkana for protection and legal action against the Respondents. It was also stated in Complaint that on 19.01.2017, when the applicant was busy at his land at about 04:30 p.m., Respondents No.1 to 3 alongwith 6/7 unknown criminal persons armed with weapons came at the land of complainant and in presence of witnesses namely Majid Ali and Wajid Ali both sons of Ghulam Mustafa Junejo overpowered upon him and on the display of weapons dispossessed the complainant from his land forcibly for which the complainant initially approached to the SHO, P.S. Bakrani, complained against the Respondents for taking legal action but he refused to do so, hence the complainant approached to the SSP Larkana but in vain and filed complaint. Reports were called from the official Respondent No.5 and 6, who submitted their respective reports.

3. On such complaint, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after going through the relevant record and perusing the report of SHO and Mukhtiarkar came to conclusion that it is the contrary to the claim of the complainant, as such there appeared no justification in the said complaint, which was dismissed.

4. I have heard the arguments advanced and have gone through the relevant records. As the SHO concerned is also one of the Respondents, therefore, notice was issued to him and he has submitted a report, which is taken on record. The report of the Mukhtiarkar Taluka Bakrani is of much significance as according to him the owner of S.No.62/1 is under possession of Muhammad Azeem whereas S.No.69/2 is under the water, hence no one has occupied, and no offence has been made out.

5. It is important to note that the aforementioned report of Mukhtiarkar is submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondents No.1, 2 & 3 under his statement date 07.05.2018. The SHO concerned has also submitted a similar report and in view of the reports of the responsible officials, the contention of the learned counsel for Respondents seems to be more appropriate, especially when these reports have not been challenged or even controverted so far by the applicant before any forum. Apparently, the applicant is trying to give a criminal color to a dispute, which is purely of civil nature.

6. In view of the above, I have no hesitation to declare that the impugned order is not suffering from any illegality as such the same is maintained and the instant criminal revision application is dismissed.

                                                                             JUDGE

Manzoor