Order
Sheet
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH
AT SUKKUR
C. P. No. D – 724 of 2020
Before :
Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed
Petitioner : Muhammad Sachal Shar
Through Mr. Abdul Hamid Sangi, Advocate
Date of hearing : 22.07.2020.
Date of order : 22.07.2020.
O R D E R
ADNAN-UL-KARIM MEMON, J. – Through this petition, the petitioner seeks
direction to NAB authorities to conduct an enquiry and to take action against
the persons involved in the forgery of revenue record of District Khairpur. Prima-facie the basic intention of the Petitioner is to
seek order from this Court for investigation of alleged forgery committed
by the revenue authorities in the record of rights in District Khairpur, so
that he may have knowledge whether concerned revenue officials were involved in
the alleged scam or otherwise. Per petitioner the documents submitted
by him prima-facie show their involvement in the fraud and forgery in the
revenue record of different Dehs of Taluka Faizganj District Khairpur. Prima-facie the assertion of the Petitioner is wholly misconceived and the
instant petition is not maintainable on the
grounds that the petitioner has approached this Court for fish-hunting
in a writ jurisdiction, whereas it is a settled
principle of law that this Court, while exercising its powers under
Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan cannot
enquire into factual controversies as agitated by the petitioner, which
require evidence and the same is outside the scope and ambit of Article
199 of the Constitution. Though the learned counsel for the Petitioner in
his abortive attempt explained by taking us to the entire file but we have
found that this could only be done after making extensive enquiry and investigation.
We are fortified in this regard by a judgment given by the learned
Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in the case of Agha Muzamil Khan
through General Attorney and 8 others Vs. Consolidation Officer, Lahore
and 62 others ( PLD 2005 Lahore 422) wherein, relying upon several
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, following has been
observed:-
“7....We are firm in our view that the
appellants have raised factual controversies and disputed questions of facts,
which cannot be decided without recording evidence and such an exercise cannot
be taken by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction and amply
falls within the domain of the Courts of plenary jurisdiction. It is settled
law that this Court can in exercise of its jurisdiction vested in it under
Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973,
neither enter into factual controversies nor decide disputed questions of
facts. Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Younas Khan and 12 others Vs.
government of NWFP through Secretary Forest and Agriculture, Peshawar and
others (1993 SCMR 618). Umar Hayat Khan Vs. Inayat Ullah Butt and others ( 1994
SCMR 572), Muhammad Ali and another Vs. Government of Sindh through Chief
Secretary and 2 others (1986 CLC 1123), Mst. Kaniz Fatima through Legal heirs
Vs. Muhammad Salim & others (2001 SCMR 1493) and Secretary to the
Government of the Punjab, Forest Department, Punjab Lahore thorough Divisional
Forest Officer Vs. Ghulam Nabi and 3 others (PLD 2001 SC 415)”
It is a cardinal proposition of law that the Court has to
guard against frivolous litigation as well as entering into factual
controversies and also avoid fishing and
roving enquiries under the garb of writ of Mandamus about the ascertainment of fraud
and forgery in the revenue record allegedly committed by the revenue
authorities in District Khairpur.
How this instant petition is maintainable thus has not been satisfactorily explained. Whilst Article
199 of the Constitution casts and obligation on the High Court to act in
aid of law and to protect rights within the frame work of the Constitution,
the Petitioner has failed to produce any cogent material to substantiate
and prove his claim thus, as observed above; on the face of it this
petition is not maintainable. This petition is thus dismissed in limine
along with the pending application(s).
JUDGE
JUDGE