ORDER-SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA  

Constt. Petition No. D-  537 of 2011.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

23.01.2014.

1. For orders on office objection.

2. For Katcha Peshi.

Mr. Abid Hussain Qadri, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Addl. A.G. assisted by Mr. Ali Raza Pathan State Counsel alongwith PSI Akhtar Hussain Burdi and PSI Bashir Ahmed Abro on behalf of S.S.P Larkana.

~~~~

            Through instant petition, the petitioner has alleged harassment by the private respondents; whereas it has been further stated that the police is not providing protection and the accused persons who have been nominated in the F.I.R are not being arrested. It has been further stated that the concerned Mukhtiarkar Revenue is not demarcating the land of the petitioner.

            Notices were issued; pursuant to which PSI Akhtar Hussain Burdi has shown his appearance on behalf of S.S.P Larkana. On behalf of the official respondents learned A.A.G. states that F.I.R registered against private respondents was duly challaned before the competent Court of jurisdiction, whereas accused persons nominated therein have duly been acquitted and file of some of them on account of their abscondence has been kept on dormant file. It has been further stated that no harassment whatsoever be caused by the official respondents, whereas if the petitioner will approach the concerned Mukhtiarkar seeking demarcation of his land in terms of Rule 67-A of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968, his request will be processed in accordance with law. It has been further stated by the learned A.A.G. that as per his information the claim of the petitoner with regard to subject land is still subjudice before this Court as Forest Department has filed appeal against previous orders passed in favour of the petitioner.  Learned counsel for petitioner states that the survey numbers of the subject land in the instant petition are not included in the proceedings, which had been filed by the Forest Department before this Court.

            In view of hereinabove facts, we would dispose of this petition with directions to the concerned police to provide protection to the petitioners in accordance with law and to ensure that no harassment is caused. Whereas, the petitioner is directed to approach the concerned Mukhtiarkar seeking demarcation of his land after complying with the requirements of Rule 67-A of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968, who shall process the same preferably within a period of one month and submit compliance report to this Court through Additional Registrar.

            The order passed by this Court in this petition would not effect proceedings, which may be pending before the competent Court of jurisdiction in respect of subject property.

            The petition stands disposed of in above terms.

Judge

Judge