IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl.  Rev. Application No.S- 53 of 2018

 

DATE OF HEARING

 

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE.

 

                                   

 

Ghulam Yaseen Kori………………….…………..…………….Applicant

 

Vs.

 

Ghulam Rasool and Others…...……………………………..Respondents

           

 

 

Mr. Mujeeb Rehman Shaikh Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Arain Advocate for the private respondents.

Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, Additional P.G for the State.

 

 

For hearing of main case.

 

 

                        Date of hearing:        17-06-2019

Date of short order:  17-06-2019.

 

         

                                       O R D E R

 

Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar.J., Through this Criminal Revision Application, the applicant has impugned order dated 15.05.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur Mathelo, whereby Criminal Complaint No.73 of 2017 filed by the applicant under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 has been dismissed.

2.         Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order has failed to correctly appreciate the relevant facts and so also the report submitted by the concerned Mukhtiarkar pursuant to directions of the trial Court, whereas it is not in dispute that the applicant is the owner of the land in question and was dispossessed illegally by the respondents on 20.01.2009 and it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to record evidence and proceed further instead of summarily dismissing the complaint. Learned Counsel has referred to Section 2(c) & (d) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and has also relied upon order dated 01.02.2019 passed in Crl. Rev. Application No.S- 80 of 2015 by this Court as well as cases reported as Sarfraz Ahmed V/S Mst. Naheed (2014 P Cr. L J 1659), Mst. Gulshan Bibi and others V/S Muhammad Sadique and others (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 769) and Shaikh Muhammad Naseem V/S Mst. Farida Gul (2016 S C M R 1931).

3.         On the other hand, learned Counsel for the private respondents submits that as per the applicant’s own case, he was allegedly dispossessed on 20.01.2009; however, on the said date, the applicant was not the owner of the property in question as it was purchased pursuant to sale deed dated 28.09.2009; hence a case under Illegal Dispossession Act is not maintainable. He further submits that the land in question was purchased by the present respondents from one Johar Lal, who was the owner of the property in question and thereafter various portions / parts of the property were sold to the present applicant along with another owner, whereas, land in dispute is still owned by Johar Lal and not by the present applicant. According to him, the impugned order has taken care of the entire facts and is correct in law and no exception can be drawn.

4.         Learned Additional P.G submits that the applicant is a co-sharer of the property in question, whereas no partition has been effected and therefore no case is maintainable under the Illegal Dispossession Act. He further submits that the sale deed of the property was executed on 28.09.2009, whereas it has been alleged that the applicant was dispossessed on 20.01.2009. He has prayed for dismissal of the present application.

5.         I have heard both the learned Counsel as well as learned Additional P.G and perused the record. At the very outset, learned Counsel for the applicant was confronted as to how the applicant claims that he was illegally dispossessed on 20.01.2009 when in para-1 of this application, he has himself stated that insofar as present land i.e. 02-31Ύ acres of land is concerned, it was purchased through sale deed dated 28.09.2009 and to this learned Counsel could not satisfactorily respond; but made an attempt to refer to Form-VII. However, perusal of the same reflects that the property in question was purchased in two parts, one through sale deed dated 12.04.2008 and the other through sale deed dated 28.09.2009, whereas, prayer clause in this application relates to the property which was purchased through sale deed dated 28.09.2009 and therefore allegation to the effect that the applicant was dispossessed does not seems to be justified as on 20.01.2009 the applicant was not the owner of the property in question. It further appears that under the said sale deed dated 28.09.2009, it has been stated that the possession of the said property is being handed over today and this also negates the stance of the applicant.

6.         Learned Counsel was also confronted as to how an application under the Illegal Dispossession Act was filed in 2017 in respect of an incident of 2009, to which no satisfactory response was given, except that no limitation has been provided in the Illegal Dispossession Act by itself. Though this may be true, but such huge delay has to be explained and when it is a case of criminal nature wherein dispossession has been alleged, the applicant ought to be vigilant and had to approach the Court promptly within a reasonable time. Such delay also does not support the stance of the applicant.

7.         In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that no case for indulgence is made out, whereas impugned order appears to be correct in law and therefore by means of a short order passed in the earlier part of the day, this Criminal Revision Application was dismissed and these are the reasons in support thereof.

 

 

 

                                                                                                            JUDGE

 

 

 

                                               

 

 

 

Ahmad