IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Present:

Irshad Ali Shah, J.

Agha Faisal, J.

CP D338 of 2017                 :           Imamuddin Qureshi vs.

Nizakat Ali & others.

For the Petitioner                 :           Mr. Ghulam Dastagir A. Shahani, Advocate.

For the Respondent No.1   :           Mr. Mazhar Ali Bhutto, Advocate.

For official Respondents    :           Mr. Liaquat Ali Shar, Addl. A.G.

Dates of hearing                  :           09.03.2022.

Date of announcement      :           09.03.2022.

ORDER

Agha Faisal, J.         Briefly stated, vide order dated 20.06.2000 the learned Commissioner was pleased to cancel two entries inter alia on account of being fake. The one cancelled entry was in favor of Ghulam Murtaza and the other entry was in favor of Balaghat Hussain Dehlvi. Both persons were party to the said proceedings and were represented therein. The applicant, claiming title throughBalaghat Hussain Dehlvi, was also party to the aforesaid proceedings. The said order was challenged by Mr. Ghulam Murtaza before the Member Board of Revenue Sindh, however, the present applicant (or the alleged predecessor in interest Balaghat Hussain Dehlvi) never challenged the said order. The present petition was filed in the year 2017 challenging the order dated 20.06.2000 and also subsequent order of the learned Member Board of Revenue dated 18.06.2015.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that his vested rights had been curtailed vide the impugned orders, hence, interference was merited in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had never assailed the original order dated 20.06.2000, hence, same has attained finality. It is further submitted that the present petition was an unfortunate attempt by the petitioner to subvert the due process of justice and to set the entire adjudication process at naught. Learned Addl. A.G. adopted the arguments advanced by the respondent’s counsel.

3. Heard and perused. It is prima facie apparent from the title of the original impugned order dated 20.06.2000 thatBalaghat Hussain Dehlvi and the petitioner were respondents therein. It is admitted that no appeal was ever preferred in respect of the said order either by the petitioner, or the person through the petitioner claims entitlement, within time or at any time till date.Even if the petitioner was to rest his case on the appellate order dated 18.6.2015, in another appeal, even then the present petition would be hit by laches.

4. The applicant remained at liberty to assert any rights in respect of the relevant immoveable property either via appealing the original order and / or by filing proceedings before the Court of competent plenary jurisdiction. Admittedly the same has not been done and filing of the present petition is of no merit to the petitioner.

5. In view hereof this petition is found to be entirely misconceived, hence, dismissed.

                                                                   JUDGE

JUDGE