IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Present:

Irshad Ali Shah, J.

Agha Faisal, J.

CP D237of 2021                  :           Muhammad Waseem Vs.

                                                            Atta Hussain & others.

For the Petitioners               :           Mr. Abdul Rehman A. Bhutto, advocate

Dates of hearing                  :           23.02.2022

Date of announcement      :           23.02.2022

ORDER

Agha Faisal, J.         (1) Deferred (2) Granted; subject to all just exceptions (3) This petition has been filed challenging the judgment of the learned Anti Encroachment Tribunal, Larkana rendered on 16.03.2021. It is considered illustrative to reproduce findings herein below:

"In view of the above facts and perused the record of case very carefully, after filing of the suit by plaintiff, preliminary notice issued to the private defendant No.1 and called the report from the official defendants. The private defendant No.1 appeared through counsel and filed his written statement and the official defendants filed their comprehensive reports, any encroachment was not found from the reports of the officials. The Municipal Corporation Larkana is the custodian of the suit property and he had launched the residential and commercial scheme on the suit property. The Land Officer Municipal Corporation Larkana has submitted report alongwith layout plan of the suit property, wherein it is mentioned that the main road of suit property is consist about 45 feet wide and street consist about 25 feet and no encroachment was made by the private defendant. The plaintiff is owner of plot No.09 admeasuring 36x60=32160 sq.ft and the defendant No.1 is owner of plot No.27 area 290 sq.ft and plot No.28 area 370 total 760 sq.ft. The plaintiff have miserably failed to prove his case, hence this suit is dismissed.

            Learned counsel was asked to demonstrate any infirmity in the reasoning and findings contained in the judgment, however, he remained unable to do so. Learned counsel was queried as to whether the conclusion drawn in the impugned judgment could be reasonably rested on the grounds relied upon by the learned court in such regard; learned counsel remained unable to articulate any cavil in such regard. The learned Tribunal appears to have considered the evidence/record, analyzed it exhaustively and rendered its findings in prima facieaccordance with law. In view of the manifest inability of the learned counsel to identify any infirmity therewith, it is considered opinion of this court that no interference in the writ jurisdiction is merited. In view hereof this petition is hereby dismissed in limine.

                                                                   JUDGE

JUDGE