IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Present : Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar

Mr. Justice Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui

C.P. No. D - 484 of 2017

Mir Muhammad Hingorjo.………………………...…………………..Petitioner

Versus

Province of Sindh and 08 others………………..……………….Respondents

Date of Hearing & Order : 03.03.2017

Mr. Ghulam Rasool Mangi, advocate for the petitioner

O R D E R

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J: The petitioner is claiming his right of ownership on a piece of land measuring 1800 square feet situated adjacent to Old Wah, Chohar Jamali, District Thatta. Through the instant petition, he seeks interference of this Court in execution proceedings as well as fresh survey of the land in question.

2. According to the petitioner, his predecessor namely Haji Mohammed Hingorjo moved an application dated 12-12-1992 to the Deputy Commissioner, Thatta for grant of the above-referred piece of land belonging to the government. After fulfilling the requisite formalities, the predecessor of petitioner succeeded in getting permission (Ijazat-nama), and entry was placed in Village Form-II, and No Objection Certificate was also issued in favour of his predecessor-in-interest. As alleged by the petitioner, his predecessor accordingly became the owner of the said piece of land, but one Abdul Raman Memon, the then Chairman of Town Committee, kept an evil eye on the said plot who claimed the said plot as the part of his residential plot No. 93. He also filed a civil suit No. 03/2000 for the declaration, possession etc., which was decreed in his favour and appeal was also decided against the predecessor of the petitioner. Meanwhile, the predecessor of petitioner expired and the petitioner as well as other legal heirs entered in the litigation and filed a revision application No. 81/2007 before this court, which was dismissed. The petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but his CPLA No. 255-K/2016 was also dismissed.

3. After the said round of litigation, the petitioner filed the instant petition against the official respondents only. In the instant petition, he prayed for a direction for re-survey of the plot in question as well as stay of proceedings under Execution Application No. 03/2016 (Suit No. 03/2000) pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sujawal.

4. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner was required to satisfy this court regarding maintainability of the instant petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a poor person while the decree holder of execution proceeding is an influential person and trying to usurp the plot of the petitioner, which had no nexus with his own land. He contended that the official respondent did not perform the previous survey correctly. He also submitted for issuing notices to them with direction for another survey of the property in question. When we drew the attention of learned counsel for the petitioner towards the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in CPLA No. 255-K/2016, he could not reply satisfactorily and he was harping on the same string regarding resurvey of the land.

5. It is worth noting that the petitioner remained unsuccessful against the decree holder of Suit No. 03/2000 up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It would be beneficial to reproduce the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is as under:-

"The petitioner's claim is that he has been allotted land by the government authorities. Contrary to his claim, the concerned Mukhtiarkar's report reveals that there is no government land rather it is private land. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to refer to any material to suggest that the land belong to government and that the petitioner was entitled to its allotment. Such being the position, the petition is dismissed as being frivolous."

We are of the view that there remains nothing to say in the instant petition after reproducing the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner could not establish his claim in respect of property in question up to the Apex Court. As far as execution proceedings are concerned, if the petitioner has any objection in respect of execution, he may avail his remedy before the executing court as per the provisions under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC.

The above are the reasons of our short order dated 03.03.2017, whereby the instant petition and listed applications stood dismissed in limine.

JUDGE