ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Constt: Petition.No.D-457 of 2021.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

Before:

Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah,

 Mr. Justice Agha Faisal,

01. For orders on office objection “A”.

02. For hearing of M.A.No.2102/2021 (S/A).

03. For hearing of main case.

01.02.2022

                        Mr. Ghulam Dastagir Shahani, Advocate for the petitioner.

                        Mr. Abdul Rehman Bhutto, Advocate for respondent No.3.

                        Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Addl.A.G Sindh,

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

                        The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant constitutional petition are that the as per petitioner, he is lawful allottee/purchaser of the subject property, there-from he was being removed by the respondents under the garb of encroachment. In these circumstances, he filed a suit seeking declaration that act of the respondents removing/demolishing his construction over the subject property is illegal and they be restrained from interfering with his lawful possession over it; such suit was dismissed by learned Presiding Officer, Anti Encroachment Tribunal, Larkana, vide order dated 30.06.2021, which is impugned by the petitioner before this Court by way of instant constitutional petition.

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is lawful owner of the subject property, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought not to have dismissed his suit in summary manner by way of impugned order; such order being illegal is liable to be set aside.

                        Learned Addl.A.G Sindh and learned counsel for respondent No.3 by supporting the impugned order have sought for dismissal of the instant constitutional petition by contending that the encroachment over the subject property has already been removed.

                        We have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        As per written statement filed before learned Tribunal by Mukhtiarkar and City Survey Officer, Jacobabad, the subject property was part of road; it was allotted by the Chairman, Municipal Committee, Jacobabad, in favour of one Nawab Khan and now was being possessed by the petitioner; such allotment has been cancelled by the Administrator, Municipal Committee, Jacobabad and construction raised thereon has been removed/dismantled. In these premises, the learned Tribunal was right to dismiss the suit of the petitioner by way of impugned order, which is not found illegal to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. If the petitioner is having a feeling that the allotment of the subject property has been cancelled illegally, then he has remedy to exhaust under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, before the Court having jurisdiction.

                        For the facts and reasons discussed above, the instant constitutional petition is dismissed accordingly together with listed application, with no order as to cost.                                                                                                                                                                                JUDGE

                                                                                 JUDGE       .