IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Revision Appln. No. S – 13 of 2021

Date Order with Signature of Hon’ble Judge

Hearing of case

1. For orders on office objection at flag ‘A’

2. For hearing of main case

(Notice issued)

07.10.2021

Mr. Iftikhar Ali Arain Advocate for the Applicant

Mr. Riaz Ali Shaikh Advocate for proposed accused

Mr. Khalil Ahmed Metlo, DPG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

O R D E R

Amjad Ali Sahito, J;- Through instant Criminal Revision Application, the applicant has impugned the order dated 20.01.2021 passed by learned 2^nd. Additional Sessions Judge, Naushahro Feroze, whereby the direct complaint filed by the applicant u/s 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was dismissed.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant moved an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Naushahro Feroze, who called the report from the concerned Mukhtiarkar (Revenue) which shows that the applicant is owner of the plot, however, she has no title document. It is further contended that the private respondents have forcibly dispossessed the applicant from her property, as such they have committed a criminal offence, punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, therefore, they are liable to be prosecuted. He lastly prayed that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

3. Conversely, learned counsel for appearing for private respondents and learned DPG for the State prayed for dismissal of instant revision application by contending that the learned trial Judge has passed an speaking order, which does not call for interference.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, private respondent, learned DPG appearing for the State and gone through the material available on record. It would be conducive to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned order, as under;-

“I have heard arguments of learned advocate for the parties and carefully assessed the material available on record very thoroughly. The Mukhtiarkar Revenue Kandiaro and Assistant Commissioner, Kandiaro in their reports have negated the version of complainant and stated that complainant is not owner of subject house /building and there is no any entry in respect of disputed property in the record of rights. It is mandatory requirement of section 2(d) of Illegal Dispossession Act that if a person who have owns the property at the time of dispossession, but in the present matter complainant has not produced any ownership record nor proof whatsoever to show that she was dispossessed on the alleged date and time. I have further gone through the repor4t of SHO PS Kandiaro, which reveals that disputed plot was given to Haji Ali Bux by his father-in-law Muhammad Ramzan and Haji Ali Bux has given disputed plot to his son-in-law Haji Muhammad Ayoub, who has constructed house in said plot. The Mukhtiarkar Revenue Kandiaro in his report further submitted that disputed building was in possession of Haji Ali Bux since 20 years and now same is in possession of Haji Muhammad Ayoub Metlo. Moreover, provision of Illegal Dispossession Act has come in the force in year 2005, thus same will also not apply in the instant matter.”

5. I have perused the impugned order and gone through the material available on record. The trial Court while passing the impugned order dated 20.01.2021 has committed no illegality or irregularity, hence it does not call for any interference by this Court. It is maintained accordingly. Consequently, the instant criminal revision application fails and it is dismissed.

Judge

ARBROHI