ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

C.P No.D-324 of 2007

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

1. FOR ORDER ON OFFICE OBJECTION.

2. FOR KATCHA PESHI.

13-04-2011

Mr. Muhammad Ishtiaque Khan, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, Additional A.G. Sindh.

………………….

The Petitioner has filed the instant Petitioner containing the following prayers: -

a) That the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 be directed to attest the entry No.16 of Village Form-VII-A of Survey No.14/1 admeasuring 4-00 acres of land situated in deh Rajpari Tappo Tando Qaisar, Taluka & District Hyderabad transcribed from village Form-VII (Old) in favour of the deceased Bashir Ahmed alias Eidoo son of Khuda Bux and issue its certified copy to the Petitioner.

b) That the Respondents be also directed to mutate the name of the Petitioner & others in the Revenue Record of Register against the land in question left by his father Bashir Ahmed alias Eidoo as his legal heir after his death as owner.

c) The Respondent No.1 & 2 permanently be restrained from mutating the name of the alleged Ghulam Mohammad in the Revenue Record of Entry No.16 of Village Form VII-S of Deh Rajpari District Hyderabad on the basis of alleged false and fabricated and unverified Sale Deed.

d) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Counsel contends that the father of the Petitioner was granted 04-00 acres of agricultural land comprising Revenue S.No.14/1 in Deh Rajpari, Tappo Tando Qaisar District Hyderabad in the year 1958 in satisfaction of his settlement claim. Per learned counsel after the death of the Petitioner’s father in 2002, the Petitioner approached Respondent No.2 Mukhtiarkar, Hyderabad for mutation of his name in the record of rights but the Respondent No.2 after verifying the record informed the Petitioner that entry in the name of his father is unattested therefore, mutation in the name of Petitioner is not possible unless the said entry is duly attested. Thereafter the Petitioner approached the Respondent No.1 District Coordination Officer (Revenue), Hyderabad seeking attestation of the entry and issuance of certified copy thereof, who after process revealed that the entry in the name of the Petitioner’s father has been transcribed from V.F-VII (Old) but the said V.F is in torn condition and does not contain the entry in the name of father of the Petitioner. In this process it further transpired that a registered sale deed was allegedly executed by the Petitioner’s father in favour of one Ghulam Muhammad in respect of the said land. Counsel states that the said sale deed was bogus, fraudulent and once this Court directs the Respondents to attest the entry then such sale deed would be of no consequential effect.

On the other hand, Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, Addl. A.G. Sindh states that though as per entry No.47 of Haqdaran Register Book No.8647 Survey No.14/1 area 04-00 acres, Deh Rajpari is entered in the name of Bashir Ahmed alias Eidoo but such entry was unattested. This entry refers to corresponding entry No.215, 216 of V.F-VII (Old), which is in debris and the original entry cannot be ascertained. It is further contended that in 1973 a sale deed was executed by the Petitioner’s father in the name of one Ghulam Muhammad Channa.

We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the relevant record.

It appears to be an admitted position that the Petitioner or his father never remained in possession of the said land nor father of the petitioner in his life time ever persuaded his claim in respect of said 04-00 acres of land. It was only after death of the Petitioner’s father that the Petitioner started moving applications to the various forums without giving any justification for remaining mum right from 1958 to 2002 when his father died, specially when admittedly the Petitioner or his father never remained in possession of the said land. Besides valid legal objection raised by the office, the instant petition suffers by latches. In our opinion it also contains disputed question of facts, which cannot be adjudicated in the instant jurisdiction and the proper course would have been for the Petitioner to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction.

The petition being incompetent is hereby dismissed.

JUDGE

A.C