IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

LARKANA

Crl. Revision Appln. No. S-  70 of 2022.

Syed Hussain Shah.                                                             …………...Applicant.

Versus

Farooq Ahmed,

& others.                                                                                ……..….Respondents.

            Mr. Ghulam Muhiyuddin Durrani, Advocate

for the applicant.

Date of hearing:                    01.12.2022.

Date of order:                       01.12.2022.

ORDER

Amjad Ali Sahito, J- Through this revision application, the applicant has assailed the order dated 03.09.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero (District Larkana) in Criminal Complaint No.47/2022, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the complaint, filed by the applicant under provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

            According to contents of the criminal complaint filed by the applicant/ complainant Syed Hussain Shah, he owns survey No.435/2 situated in Deh and Tapo Naudero of Taluka Ratodero and on 16.08.2021 when he alongwith his witnesses was present at his aforementioned land, accused persons, namely, Farooque Ahmed Arbani, Junaid Ahmed Mirani, Shahzado Mirbahar, Sanaullah Shaikh and Anwar Ali Buriro having deadly weapons came there and illegally dispossessed him from his property. 

            On such complaint, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after going through the relevant record and perusing the reports of SHO and the Mukhtiarkar came to conclusion that the matter is of civil nature and the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, do not attract to the case, as such the impugned order was passed by dismissing the complaint.

            Heard learned counsel for applicant and gone through the material available on record and the impugned order as well.

            Per report of the SHO concerned, the accused persons, namely, Farooq Ahmed and Shahzado alias Junaid Ahmed have purchased some areas from survey No.48 (Sugar Mill Road, Naudero) from one Syed Sanaullah Shah Rashidi and they have not occupied survey No.435/2 belonging to applicant/ complainant. Report of SHO further reveals that accused Sanaullah Shaikh is working as broker; as such he has been implicated in the case.

            The Mukhtiarkar concerned reported to learned trial Court that according to revenue record the applicant/ complainant Syed Hussain Shah owns survey No.435/2, and he has already sold out most of the area to different persons through registered sale deeds and now only an area of 0.17 remains in possession of applicant/ complainant.

            Furthermore, learned counsel for applicant has produced with this revision a photocopy of application available at page 81, (annexure-“F”), moved by the applicant to SSP Larkana aginast Sanaullah Shah son of Ashique Ali Shah, mentioning therein about sale of his property to accused persons and putting them into its possession fraudulently. And, as per report of SHO said Sanaullah Shah happens to be nephew/ sister’s son of the applicant.

            Thus it is obvious from the report of SHO, as well as from contents of application moved by complainant to the SSP Larkana that accused persons were put into possession pursuant to sale transaction done by Syed Sanaullah Shah (who happens to be his nephew/ sister’s). Moreover, the report of SHO also does not reveal that the accused/ private respondents belong to Qabza group or land mafia.

            The preamble and scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is limited and applicable to dispossession by land grabbers, Qabza group and land-mafia from immovable property. Here, in this case, the respondents (who are not allegedly belonging to group of land grabbers, Qabza group and of land mafia) have been in possession of premises in question by virtue of sale by nephew/ sister’s son of applicant. Therefore, the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, would not be applicable to this case. The matter seems to be purely of civil nature; as such the applicant has a remedy available to him to approach the relevant forum for redressal of his grievance.

            The instant criminal revision application being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed in limine.

                                                              Judge

Ansari