IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

LARKANA

Crl. Revision Appln. No. S- 06 of 2023.

Syed Mujtaba Hassan Shah.                                               …………...Applicant.

Versus

Arz Muhammad

& others.                                                                                ……..….Respondents.

            Mr. Shakeel Ahmed Channa, Advocate

for the applicant.

Date of hearing:                    09.02.2023.

Date of order:                       09.02.2023.

ORDER

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J- Through this revision application, applicant Syed Mujtaba Hassan Shah has assailed the order dated 03.01.2023, passed by learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge,  Shikarpur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed a complaint, filed by the applicant under provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

            The facts of the case as depicted from para 1 of the impugned order, read as under:

            “As per complaint, the landed property bearing survey No.755, admeasuring 03-37 acres situated in deh and Tapo Garhi Budhal, Taluka Khanpur, District Shikarpur, was actually government property allotted to respondent No.2, namely, Abdul Ghafoor during the year 1979-80, who sold it out to one Syed Asif Ali Shah son of Syed Moosa Ali Shah (uncle of present complainant) on 17.11.1985 against sale consideration of Rs.20,000/-. Said Syed Asif Ali Shah spent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and brought it under cultivation. Simultaneously he paid installments of land to Colonization Department. At the refusal by owner to transfer the land, Syed Asif Ali Shah filed Civil Suit No.1/2000 for specific performance of contract, while respondent No.2 Abdul Ghafoor Jatoi also filed F.C. Suit No.160/2000 for restoration of possession and mense profits.   Complainant further stated that during pendency of civil litigation matter went to “fasila” in which owner agreed to transfer the land in the name of Syed Asif Ali Shah at enhanced price. Consequently, an amount of Rs.41000/- was paid to Abdul Ghafoor on 28.03.2004 through nekmard Mumtaz Ahmed Pahore under proper receipt and then both the parties agreed to transfer the land in the name of present complainant as the possession of land was handed over y Syed Asif Ali Shah to complainant. Subsequently, Abdul Ghafoor Jatoi withdrew from his suit but thereafter he refused to transfer his land to present complainant, who then filed F.C. Suit No.48/2002 for specific performance of contract, declaration and permanent injunction. According to complainant, on 14.6.2022 at 2.00 p.n. when complainant along with witnesses namely Asif Ali Shah and Rasool Bux Shah were available at the land when respondents No.1, 3 and 4 under the advice of respondent No.2 illegally occupied the land of complainant and dispossessed him therefrom.”

            On such complaint, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after going through the relevant record and perusing the reports of SHO and the Mukhtiarkar concerned came to conclusion that the matter is of civil nature and the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, do not attract to the case, as such the impugned order was passed by dismissing the complaint.

            Heard learned counsel for the applicant and gone through the material available on record and the impugned order as well.

            The learned counsel for the applicant while arguing his case has re-iterated the same facts and grounds as urged in the memo of complaint to the effect that the land in question was illegally occupied by private respondents, though they have no any right or title over property in question and that they have illegally occupied over it.

            The reports of Mukhtiarkar as well as SHO concerned are on the record.  The SHO has reported that according to his enquiry, the land in question is registered in the name of accused Abdul Ghafoor Jatoi. Whereas, report of Mukhtiarkar also reflects that the land in question stands entered in the name of Abdul Ghafoor Jatoi. However, reports of both the officers do not reveal that the accused/ private respondents belong to Qabza group or land mafia.

            Perusal of impugned order reveals that the applicant/ complainant is not the owner of the land in question, but he claims to be its owner by virtue of purchase through un-registered oral agreement and as per relevant laws an un-registered agreement to sale does not confer any right in favor of its beneficiary/ buyer. The impugned order further reveals that civil litigation in respect of aforesaid un-registered agreement is pending adjudication before competent Civil Court. In view of above factual position, the learned trial Court has rightly observed and come to conclusion that the matter is of civil nature and the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, do not attract to the case.

            Further perusal of impugned order reflects that it was passed after giving due consideration to the facts and the relevant law applicable, hence not to be interfered. Result thereof this criminal revision application is dismissed in limine.

                                                              Judge

Ansari