ORDER SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANO

Cr.  Rev. Appln. No. S-61 of 2024

Date	Order with signature of Judge

1. For order on office objection.

2. For orders on M.A No. 6085/2024. (Exemption Application)

3. For hearing of main case.

17-02-2025

Mr. Ashique Hussain Kalhoro, advocate for the applicant

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

         Through instant criminal revision application, the applicant has impugned the order dated 14.09.2024, passed by the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana in a Cr. Complaint No. 44/2024, for offence U/s 3(2) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, whereby his complaint has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that impugned order is/was nullity in the eyes of law, being based on presumptions, which warrants interference of this court for just administration of justice, therefore, impugned order be set-aside.

3. The preamble of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 provides, whereas it is expedient to protect the lawful owners and occupiers of immovable properties from their illegal or forcible dispossession therefrom by the property grabbers.

4. This is an special enactment and procedure for taking cognizance of the case and is based on the investigation being conducted by the officer Incharge of the Police Station as provided U/S 5(1)(1) of the Act.

5. In Subsection (1) of the Section (5) of Act ibid procedure of the investigation is provided and its subsection (2) provides that on taking cognizance of the case, the court shall proceed with the trial from day to day and shall decide the case within sixty days and for any delay sufficient reasons shall be recorded.

6. From perusal of impugned order, it prima facie appears that in the inquiry report submitted by the Investigation Officer, it suggests that no such alleged incident occurred. Besides a report was called from the Mukhtiarkar (Revenue), Taluka Kandhkot and he vide his letter No. AM/K.Kot/716, dated 14.09.20214 submitted that property claimed by the applicant was reserved for easement for villagers and not for individual and complainant is/was not legitimate owner theretof and also that disputed area which is constructed by proposed accused Kashmir Ogahi is away from village Mirzan Ogahi and there is Ghouspur minor between the village and disputed site which may exist in Sy. No.74, belonging to Government and was granted to one Allah Bux Ogahi.

7. I am fortified from the case laws reported as PLD 2002 Karachi 115, 2010 YLR 975, 2010 SCMR 1810.

8. Since the applicant has failed to bring on record cogent evidence to suggest that he was owner of the property as admittedly area claimed by him and Deh Form VII-B produced by the applicant is suggestive of the fact that it was Government land given for Asaish of village Mirzan Ogahi. Besides the applicant has failed to establish the fact that he has remained in its possession being owner oor occupier, therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity whatsoever, therefore, instant criminal revision application is dismissed along with pending applications in limine.

                                                               Judge