IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Rev. Application No.S- 53 of 2018
|
DATE OF HEARING |
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF
JUDGE. |
Ghulam
Yaseen Kori
.
..
.Applicant
Vs.
Ghulam
Rasool and Others
...
..Respondents
Mr. Mujeeb Rehman Shaikh Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Arain Advocate for the private
respondents.
Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, Additional P.G for the
State.
For hearing of main case.
Date of
hearing: 17-06-2019
Date of
short order: 17-06-2019.
O
R D E R
Muhammad
Junaid Ghaffar.J., Through this Criminal
Revision Application, the applicant has impugned order dated 15.05.2018, passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur Mathelo, whereby Criminal Complaint
No.73 of 2017 filed by the applicant under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005
has been dismissed.
2. Learned Counsel for the applicant
submits that the impugned order has failed to correctly appreciate the relevant
facts and so also the report submitted by the concerned Mukhtiarkar pursuant to
directions of the trial Court, whereas it is not in dispute that the applicant
is the owner of the land in question and was dispossessed illegally by the
respondents on 20.01.2009 and it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to
record evidence and proceed further instead of summarily dismissing the
complaint. Learned Counsel has referred to Section 2(c) & (d) of the
Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and has also relied upon order dated 01.02.2019
passed in Crl. Rev. Application No.S- 80 of 2015 by this Court as well as cases
reported as Sarfraz Ahmed V/S Mst.
Naheed (2014 P Cr. L
J 1659), Mst. Gulshan Bibi
and others V/S Muhammad Sadique and others (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 769) and Shaikh
Muhammad Naseem V/S Mst. Farida Gul (2016 S C M R 1931).
3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for
the private respondents submits that as per the applicants own case, he was
allegedly dispossessed on 20.01.2009; however, on the said date, the applicant
was not the owner of the property in question as it was purchased pursuant to
sale deed dated 28.09.2009; hence a case under Illegal Dispossession Act is not
maintainable. He further submits that the land in question was purchased by the
present respondents from one Johar Lal, who was the owner of the property in
question and thereafter various portions / parts of the property were sold to
the present applicant along with another owner, whereas, land in dispute is
still owned by Johar Lal and not by the present applicant. According to him,
the impugned order has taken care of the entire facts and is correct in law and
no exception can be drawn.
4. Learned Additional P.G submits that the
applicant is a co-sharer of the property in question, whereas no partition has
been effected and therefore no case is maintainable under the Illegal
Dispossession Act. He further submits that the sale deed of the property was executed
on 28.09.2009, whereas it has been alleged that the applicant was dispossessed
on 20.01.2009. He has prayed for dismissal of the present application.
5. I have heard both the learned Counsel as
well as learned Additional P.G and perused the record. At the very outset, learned
Counsel for the applicant was confronted as to how the applicant claims that he
was illegally dispossessed on 20.01.2009 when in para-1 of this application, he
has himself stated that insofar as present land i.e. 02-31Ύ acres of land is
concerned, it was purchased through sale deed dated 28.09.2009 and to this
learned Counsel could not satisfactorily respond; but made an attempt to refer
to Form-VII. However, perusal of the same reflects that the property in question
was purchased in two parts, one through sale deed dated 12.04.2008 and the
other through sale deed dated 28.09.2009, whereas, prayer clause in this application
relates to the property which was purchased through sale deed dated 28.09.2009
and therefore allegation to the effect that the applicant was dispossessed does
not seems to be justified as on 20.01.2009 the applicant was not the owner of
the property in question. It further appears that under the said sale deed dated
28.09.2009, it has been stated that the possession of the said property is
being handed over today and this also negates the stance of the applicant.
6. Learned Counsel was also confronted as
to how an application under the Illegal Dispossession Act was filed in 2017 in
respect of an incident of 2009, to which no satisfactory response was given,
except that no limitation has been provided in the Illegal Dispossession Act by
itself. Though this may be true, but such huge delay has to be explained and
when it is a case of criminal nature wherein dispossession has been alleged,
the applicant ought to be vigilant and had to approach the Court promptly
within a reasonable time. Such delay also does not support the stance of the
applicant.
7. In view of the foregoing facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the view that no case for indulgence is made
out, whereas impugned order appears to be correct in law and therefore by means
of a short order passed in the earlier part of the day, this Criminal Revision
Application was dismissed and these are the reasons in support thereof.
JUDGE
Ahmad