ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Crl. Revision Appln. No.S-80  of 2021.

(Imran Ghous v. Muhammad Gul & others)

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

1. For orders on office objection as Flag ‘A’.

2. For hearing of main case.

09.03.2023.

                        Mr. Mazher Ali Mangan, Advocate for the Applicant.

                        Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G.

                                                -.-.-.-.-.-

Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry, J.- This Criminal Revision Application is against order dated.13.09.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shahdadkot on Criminal Complaint No.17/2021 filed by the Applicant against the Respondents 1 & 2 under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, whereby said complaint was dismissed at the preliminary stage.

            Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the refusal of the Additional Sessions Judge to take cognizance was erroneous as the report of the Mukhtiarkar had verified that the record of rights of the survey numbers claimed by the Applicant were entered in the name of the Applicant’s late father.While that is correct, the Mukhtiarkar’s report also reflected that the Respondents 1 and 2 were in possession of two katcha houses and two shops constructed on the land being claimed by the Applicant, which suggested that they had been there for some time as it was not the Applicant’s case that such construction had been raised by him or his late father. In such circumstances, the contention of the Respondents 1 & 2 that the land in question was part of their village where they had been residing since long, presented a dispute of overlapping boundaries.The complaint having been filed with a delay of 4 months of having discovered the alleged dispossession fortifiesthat view.

Learned counsel for the Applicant has not been able to demonstrate that the Applicant was in physical possession of said land at any time recent. Therefore, the conclusion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the case was of a civil nature, is not perverse. Revision Application is dismissed.

Judge