ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Revision Application No.S-69 of 2021

 

Date

               Order with signature of Judge

           

 

Applicant:                                  Mst. Saira, through

                                                  Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Halepoto,

                                                  Advocate

 

Respondents:                             Nemo

 

State:                                         Through Syed Sardar Ali Shah Rizvi,

                                                  Additional Prosecutor General

 

Date of hearing:                         25.03.2022

 

Dated of order:                           25.03.2022

                                                 

O R D E R

 

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J:  Through this Criminal Revision Application applicant has assailed order dated 03.07.2021, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Khairpur, in Criminal Complaint No.03/2021, filed under Provision of Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 whereby learned trial court has dismissed the complaint in limine.

2.                Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is owner of the land in question and was illegally dispossessed by the proposed accused persons. He next contended that the reports of concerned Mukhtiarkar and SHO were not filed properly and they have not conducted the investigation in accordance with the Provision of Section 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act and formerly submitted the reports. He also contended that the proposed accused have illegally occupied the land of the complainant on show of weapons, therefore, the complaint before the trial court was competent and prayed that the impugned order may be set-aside and case may be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with law.

3.                I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order which reflects that the complaint was dismissed in limine while observing as under:-

“8.        Report of Mukhtiarkar (Revenue) Taluka Kotdiji further reveals that survey No.547 is under possession of Mst. Saira and nor any partition made between the parties and further she is cultivating the land as per statements of nekmards. From the conduct of complainant, it can be presumed that complainant in order to settle her some personal disputes already going on with proposed accused persons, has filed instant complaint due to malafide intention & ulterior motives.

9.         Keeping in view above discussion, I have taken guideline from a case law cited as 2016 P.Cr.L.J 1877 QUETTA HIGH COURT (BALOCHISTAN), wherein it has been held that “Preamble, Ss.4 & 5 (2)--- Purpose and scope of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was enacted to protect the lawful owners and occupiers of the immovable property from their illegal and forcible dispossession by the land grabbers, further to discourage the unauthorized and illegal occupants--- said act, being special law, empowered the court to conduct special investigation within the stipulated period and after receipt of the investigation report, the court was required to apply its mind; as to whether the complaint would proceed further under S.5 (2) of said act or not---when the court would reach to the conclusion that a prima facie case was made out for taking cognizance thereafter, the court was required to proceed further and then to pass an interim order, and if the question of dispossession prima facie was not made out; the court was not bound to proceed with the complaint, but the same would be dismissed and the complainant could approach the court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance--- spirit of illegal dispossession Act, 2005 was to proceed against the persons, who were professional land grabbers or members of land mafia, and not against a person was in lawful occupation”.

10.       The facts & circumstances of case law relied upon by learned advocate for accused are applicable to the facts & circumstances of case in hand.

11.       In view of above discussion and case laws, no case of illegal dispossession is made out against above named accused; hence, I find no prima facie and merits in the instant criminal complaint, as such, same is hereby dismisses in limine.”

4.                Report submitted by the Mukhtiarkar is scanned which reflects that “According to D.K entry No.187 dated 28.09.1974 share 0-29 paisa out of S.No.484 / 3-31, 485 / 2-34, 0-14 paisa share out of S.No.547 / 2-19 and 0-16 paisa share out of S.No.627 / 1-08 acres area as per share 2-19 acres entered in the name of Umeed Ali s/o Muhammad Ali Shaikh of Deh Chhudaho Tapa Sono Gopang Taluka Kotdiji. Moreover tapedar had reported that S.No.547 under possession of Mst. Saira, she is daughter in law of Umeed Ali s/o Muhammad Ali Shaikh and he further reported that no any partition made between the parties on the site and she is cultivated the land as per statement of nekmards namely Ashok Kumar s/o Neno Mal and Bakhshal s/o Haso Khan Gopang, they have stated in their statement that Ashok Kumar s/o Neno Mal is hari of Mst. Saira since 10 years and he cultivated Kharif Crop at present Rabi Sessions the standing crop is wheat. The wheat crop cultivated by (1) Tharo s/o Latif Ali Soomro, Allah Wassayo, Shakeel, Lutuf Ali Akhtar, Abdul Rasheed, Parveez, Altaf, Abdul Sattar all sons of Tharo Soomro.”

5.                Learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to rebut the report of Mukhtiarkar and even unable to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which requires any interference by this court, therefore this application is dismissed and impugned order dated 03.07.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Khairpur is maintained.

 

 

J U D G E

 

 

 

 

Suleman Khan/PA