ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

Cr. Rev. Appl. No.S-60 of 2018

DATE         ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

          For hearing of main case.

Date of hearing:     31.12.2018.

Mr. Mehmood Ali Vistro, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Ali Gohar Baloch, Advocate for Respondents No.2 & 3.

Mr. Shawak Rathore, D.P.G. for the State.

                    =

          This order will dispose of the instant criminal revision application, wherein, impugned is the order dated 09.03.2018 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad. Through the impugned order, a complaint filed by the applicant u/s 3, 4, 7 & 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was dismissed.

          The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant has purchased share of one Ghulam Mustafa in an inherited property wherein the said Ghulam Mustafa was co-owner with his brother Meer Illahi Bux  etc. It is the claim of applicant that on the day of execution of sale deed, he was put in possession of the land in question, but the Respondents dispossessed him subsequently.  

          While pressing the instant criminal revision application, learned counsel for the applicant made his submissions at length. The jist of his arguments is that the property in question is actually the property from which the share of one brother namely Ghulam Mustafa was purchased by the applicant. The private respondents are Brohis by caste and they are neither co-owners nor have any relation with the person from whom the applicant has purchased the land in question. It is the claim of private respondents that they got land on lease from Illahi Bux who is co-owner in the land. Per learned counsel for the applicant, lease agreement is void, ab-initio as it does not mention the survey numbers. The applicant is in possession of land in question as per private settlement by the father of Ghulam Mustafa and Illahi Bux but the same is not in writing or registered.  

          The learned counsel for private respondents opposed the instant criminal revision application. Briefly his arguments are that being a joint property, unless properly partitioned, a complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act is not maintainable. A similar complaint was filed by the applicant in 2017 but the same was dismissed. The date and time of alleged incident of the earlier complaint is same.

          Learned D.P.G. supports the impugned order and submits that it would be proper that the applicant may approach the Civil Court instead of filing a criminal complaint.

          After hearing the arguments advanced, I have perused the available record.

          In response to a query, learned counsel for the applicant stated that the lease agreement between Meer Illahi Bux and the private respondents was executed on 15.10.2010 while the property was purchased in the year 2014. From this fact, it appears that at the time of execution of sale deed, the property was already in possession of the private respondents under a lease agreement. As far as, private settlement is concerned, it has been admitted by the counsel for applicant that the same is neither in writing nor registered. Meaning thereby, that the land in question has yet not been partitioned properly. The dismissal of similar complaint in the year 2017 is evident from the record.

          In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is proper and same does not require any interference by this court. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision application stood dismissed by my short order dated 31.12.2018 and these are the reasons of same.         

JUDGE

Tufail