IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Present:
Mr.
Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Mr.
Justice Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui
C.P.No. D - 1306 of 2017
Jumma Khan
.
....
...
..Petitioner
Versus
Arif Habib and
05 others
...
.Respondents
Date
of Hearing : 31.03.2017
Mr. M. Ishaq, advocate for the
petitioner
Petitioner No.1 is present (CNIC No.41102-8456645-3)
Mr. Miran Muhammad Shah, AAG
Sindh
Barkat Ali Kalhoro, Mukhtiarkar, Gothabad
Abid Hussain Zawabi, Member Gothabad Sindh
J U D G M E N T
FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J: Through the instant petition, the petitioner has sought direction
against the official respondents to provide them protection and to restore
their possession.
2. The
petitioners have filed instant petition claiming their rights in plots Nos. C-2
(measuring 240 sq. yds), C-42 (measuring 240 sq. yds) C-33 (measuring 360 sq. yds)
and C-36 (measuring 360 sq. yds), all plots are situated in Ghazi Goth, Deh Halkani, Tapo Manghopir,
Karachi. It is claimed by the petitioners that these plots are owned by them or
their father and they have Sanads from Sindh Gothabad Scheme and Form-II is also issued in their favour. The petitioners further submit that they built
houses and started residing therein and then they went to their native village
in District Badin. After returning, they saw that the private respondents have
demolished their houses and included the same in the boundary wall of their
proposed housing scheme. The petitioners also levelled
allegation of stealing household articles etc.
3. Perusal
of the said Sanads (pages 21 & 27), issued to
petitioners, apparently seem to be fictitious as the same do not bear issuing
dates as such vide order dated 03.03.2017, the concerned Mukhtiarkar,
Sindh Gothabad Scheme Karachi was directed to appear alongwith entire original record of the subject land to
verify the genuineness of the alleged Sanad.
4. In
compliance of the above direction, Mukhtiarkar Gothabad, district West, Gothabad
appeared and verified that
the Sanads of the petitioners are not issued from his
office as the same are forged and fabricated documents. However, regarding entries in
record, he was not clear as the register is maintained in the head office.
5. Today, the petitioner No.1 Juma Khan and his counsel are in attendance. They have not
placed on record anything regarding genuineness of alleged Sanads.
Member Gothabad and Mukhtiarkar
Gothabad, District West are
also present and they categorically stated that not only Sanads
annexed with the instant petitions are fake but also the extracts of entries filed
by petitioners are counterfeited. We consider that it is a very serious matter
in which the petitioner played mockery with this Court by filing forged and
fabricated document. It is worth noting that both of them have also filed
affidavits with the instant petition. Both of the petitioners appeared before
the Affidavit and Identification Branch of this Court and sworn affidavit before the concerned
officer of this Court. We are of the view that jointly their act of filing
false document and initiating a false and frivolous proceeding by swearing
false affidavit may attract the offence of perjury.
6. In
these affairs of the state, the office is directed to send a complaint under
section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by invoking sections 193, 198,
199, 419 and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code to the learned District and
Sessions Judge, Karachi Central. The learned District and Sessions Judge is
directed to assign the matter to the court having jurisdiction for taking
cognizance and trial of the accused persons namely (1) Jumma
Khan (2) Adam Khan both sons of Ahmed Khan,resident of House No. 240, MPR Colony, Block B, Baloch Goth, Orangi Town, Karachi.
We also direct that all the forged and fabricated documents should be impounded
forthwith and the entire case file will remain in safe custody of Assistant
Registrar of Writ Branch till completion of the trial of accused. The Assistant
Registrar of Writ Branch is also directed to intimate the concerned trial court
with the CNIC and Cell Phone numbers of the accused persons, which are
available in their respective affidavits.
7. The
instant petition is dismissed along-with listed applications with a warning to
the learned counsel Mr. M. Ishaq advocate to be
careful in future.
JUDGE
JUDGE