ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

                                                C.P No. D- 261 of 2008.        

DATE         ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

1. For Katcha Peshi.

2. For hearing of MA 1179/08.

08.12.2009.

                        Mr. Ahmed Ali Shaikh, Advocate for Petitioners.

                        Mr. Jhamat Jethanand, Advocate for intervenor.

Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, Additional A.G. Sindh along with District Officer (Revenue) Badin.

                                                -----

                        The Petitioners have prayed for the following relief:-

(a) To direct the Respondents No.2 and 3 not to interfere into the peaceful possession of the Petitioners over the land mentioned in schedule-A till decision of this petition.

(b) The action/step/suomoto proceedings in this regard initiated by the Respondents No.2 and 3 against the Petitioners are illegal, void, abinitio and warrant no consideration as such be set aside.

(c) Injunction thereby restraining the Respondents from dispossessing and canceling the entry or taking steps in respect of resumption of land in question belonging to the Petitioners whatsoever.

(d) Any other relief which this Honourable Court deem fit and proper may be awarded to petitioners.  

                        We have gone through the contents of the petition, in which the Petitioners claim to be the owners of the property which is subject matter of these proceedings and seek restraining order through these proceedings, inter alia, on the ground that Suo Moto proceedings initiated by the Respondents No.2 and 3 were contrary to law. The Petitioners could have approached the authority with an application but they cannot seek relief of such a nature in collateral proceedings. The counter affidavit and the comments filed by the Government, dispute the status of the Petitioners as owners.        To establish the ownership, the Petitioners are required to approach the Civil Court where they have to lead evidence. In exercise of constitutional jurisdiction this Court will not decide the title of a party or where the issues relate to disputed question of facts this Court has to stay it’s hands in view of the limitation provided under Article 199 of the Constitution. We, therefore, are of the view that this Court cannot decide the issues raised in this petition, and such petition is accordingly dismissed along with listed application.

                                                                                                JUDGE.

                                                            JUDGE.