ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI

C. P. No. S – 568 of 2013

Date	Order with signature of the Judge

1. For Katcha Peshi

2. For hearing of Misc. No. 2925/2013.

18.02.2014

            Mr. Raham Ali Rind, advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. M. Ishaq Ali, advocate for respondent No. 5

            Ms. Amna Saleem Ansari, State Counsel.

            Mr. Saleem Buriro, APG

                                    -----------------

Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has prayed the following relief(s):

(i) To direct the Respondent No. 2 to 5 to provide protection to the allottees mentioned in the allotment orders since to 1975.

(ii) To direct the respondent No. 2 to 4 to take strict legal action against the respondent No. 5 and restrain the respondents for do not interfere in the property without due course of law.

(iii) Any other relief/relieves fit and proper according to the circumstances of the petition.

            It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 5 at the behest of official respondents are harassing the petitioner without any legal justification.  He has further submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the Plots bearing No. B – 4 and B – 5, measuring 400 square yards each, situated in Sector 6 – H, Korangi Township, Karachi. 

            Respondents No. 3 and 4 have filed their written replies, which are taken on record.

            Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submits that instant petition is misconceived and has been filed with malafide intention by the petitioner on the basis of forged documents and this fact has been proved by the Nazir’s report dated 18.06.2013 available on record.

            I have heard parties’ advocate and also perused the record.

            On going through the record, it appears that the petitioner claims that he is in possession of the plots in question as owner and he is in possession of the said plots since long.  This fact has been denied by the counsel for the respondent No. 5 by arguing that the petitioner is a trespasser on the said plots and he is also not an owner of the said plots.  In support of his contention, he has referred the Nazir’s report dated 18.06.2013 available on record as well as comments of respondent No. 4.

            From perusing the record and after hearing the parties, it appears that there is a factual controversy in respect of ownership of the petitioner on the said plots.  In my view, the factual controversy would not be determined by exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and said controversy requires probe/ evidence in proof and disproof, which exercise is not admissible in writ jurisdiction, for that purpose, the petitioner has other alternate remedy by way of approaching the Civil Court.  My such view fortified by the decision in the case law reported in 1997 SCMR 1687 (Fateh Ali v. Province of Balochistan & others) and 1999 SCMR 2381 (Ijaz Hussain Suleri v. The Registrar and another).

            In the case in hand, since factual controversy is involved, it cannot be decided in the instant petition, therefore, in view of above circumstances, I am of the view that this petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed alongwith listed application.

            However, the petitioner may seek his remedy available to him under the law, if he so desires.

J U D G E