Order Sheet

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

C. P. No. D – 724 of 2020

Before :

Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon

Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed

Petitioner : Muhammad Sachal Shar

Through Mr. Abdul Hamid Sangi, Advocate

Date of hearing : 22.07.2020.

Date of order : 22.07.2020.

O R D E R

ADNAN-UL-KARIM MEMON, J. – Through this petition, the petitioner seeks direction to NAB authorities to conduct an enquiry and to take action against the persons involved in the forgery of revenue record of District Khairpur. Prima-facie the basic intention of the Petitioner is to seek order from this Court for investigation of alleged forgery committed by the revenue authorities in the record of rights in District Khairpur, so that he may have knowledge whether concerned revenue officials were involved in the alleged scam or otherwise. Per petitioner the documents submitted by him prima-facie show their involvement in the fraud and forgery in the revenue record of different Dehs of Taluka Faizganj District Khairpur. Prima-facie the assertion of the Petitioner is wholly misconceived and the instant petition is not maintainable on  the grounds that the petitioner has approached this Court for  fish-hunting in a writ jurisdiction, whereas it is a settled principle of law that this Court, while exercising its powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan cannot enquire into factual controversies as agitated by the petitioner, which require evidence and the same is outside the scope and ambit of Article 199 of the Constitution. Though the learned counsel for the Petitioner in his abortive attempt explained by taking us to the entire file but we have found that this could only be done after making extensive enquiry and investigation. We are fortified in this regard by a judgment given by the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in the case of Agha Muzamil Khan through General Attorney and 8 others Vs. Consolidation Officer, Lahore and 62 others ( PLD 2005 Lahore 422) wherein, relying upon several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, following has been observed:-

“7....We are firm in our view that the appellants have raised factual controversies and disputed questions of facts, which cannot be decided without recording evidence and such an exercise cannot be taken by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction and amply falls within the domain of the Courts of plenary jurisdiction. It is settled law that this Court can in exercise of its jurisdiction vested in it under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, neither enter into factual controversies nor decide disputed questions of facts. Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Younas Khan and 12 others Vs. government of NWFP through Secretary Forest and Agriculture, Peshawar and others (1993 SCMR 618). Umar Hayat Khan Vs. Inayat Ullah Butt and others ( 1994 SCMR 572), Muhammad Ali and another Vs. Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 2 others (1986 CLC 1123), Mst. Kaniz Fatima through Legal heirs Vs. Muhammad Salim & others (2001 SCMR 1493) and Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Forest Department, Punjab Lahore thorough Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Ghulam Nabi and 3 others (PLD 2001 SC 415)” 

It is a cardinal proposition of law that the Court has to guard against frivolous litigation as well as entering into factual controversies and also avoid fishing and roving enquiries under the garb of writ of Mandamus about the ascertainment of fraud and forgery in the revenue record allegedly committed by the revenue authorities in District Khairpur. How this instant petition is maintainable thus has not been satisfactorily explained. Whilst Article 199 of the Constitution casts and obligation on the High Court to act in aid of law and to protect rights within the frame work of the Constitution, the Petitioner has failed to produce any cogent material to substantiate and prove his claim thus, as observed above; on the face of it this petition is not maintainable. This petition is thus dismissed in limine along with the pending application(s).

JUDGE

JUDGE