IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Rev. Application No.S-89 of 2020

Applicant: Rehmatullah Doongah, through

Mr. Saqib Kalhoro, Advocate

Respondents: Gulzar and others, through

Mr. Mushtaque Ali Tagar, Advocate

State: Through Syed Sardar Ali Shah, D.P.G.

Date of hearing: 17.09.2021.

Date of order: 17.09.2021.

O R D E R

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J: Through this Criminal Revision Application, the Applicant has assailed the order dated 20.11.2020, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Moro, whereby direct complaint filed by applicant under the Provision of Illegal Dispossession Act, was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant was illegally dispossessed by the accused persons and the land in question was illegally occupied by them. He further contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moro has not applied his judicial mind while deciding his complaint, as such the impugned order is liable to be set-aside

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ accused has fully supported the impugned order and submitted that there is civil dispute in between the parties and the applicant has filed direct complaint with malafide intention which was rightly dismissed by the learned trial court.

4. Learned DPG appearing for the State also supported the impugned order contending that the same is well-reasoned and does not require any interference of this court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. Record reflects that prior to filing of Complaint No.52/2020, another complaint under provision of Illegal Dispossession Act bearing Complaint No.07/2020 was also filed by the present applicant which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Moro on 14.02.2020 and such order was complied with and demarcation was made. It also transpires from the record that the respondents have challenged the entry No.38 and 39 dated 28.03.2006 and ownership of the present applicant over the land in question and that revenue appeal is pending before ADC-I Naushahro Feroze. Record further reflects that there is dispute of ownership and both the parties are co-sharer in the subject land. Since civil dispute is pending before the revenue forum which will decide the actual ownership of the disputed land, as such the complaint of the applicant was not maintainable and was rightly dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Moro. In these circumstances, in my view the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Moro is well-reasoned and does not require any interference of this court. Resultantly, this application is dismissed.

JUDGE

Suleman Khan/PA