ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For katcha peshi.

18-03-2015.

Mr. Muhammad NasirAbro, advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro Additional A.G. Sindh alongwith SIP M. Ayoob of Police Station Talhar, Badin.

Mr. Muhammad IshaqueKhoso, advocate for respondents No.7 and 8.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as A.A.G.

The petitioner claims that he and his other relatives are owners of Revenue Survey Nos.153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 172 and 176 situated in Buhro IV, TapoSajjan, TalukaTalhar, District Badin. He moved an application to respondent No.4 against the respondents No.7 and 8 on 17.02.2007 for demarcation of the land owned by him and his other relatives, but the same is pending and no action was taken by respondent No.4 for effecting the demarcation.

The counsel for respondents No.7 and 8 has no objection if the exercise of demarcation is carried out on the application of the petitioner. He further submitted that similar application was also moved by respondents No.7 and 8 to the respondent No.4, which is also pending so virtually not only the petitioner but respondents No.7 and 8 are also interested for the demarcation exercise of their lands.

The learned Additional A.G. has filed comments of respondents No.3 to 6. In the comments, respondent No.4 has admitted that the application was moved by the petitioner for demarcation purpose, but in the same comments he further stated that notices were issued to the petitioner for attending the demarcation exercise, but neither the petitioner appeared himself nor he sent his representative, due to which the measurement process could not be finalized. He further stated that on 23.04.2011 a team of Village Staff sent for demarcation and according to which the petitioner is in possession of the land of respondents No.7, 8 and others measuring 00-30 ghuntas from S.No.174 and 00-35 ghuntas for S. No.175, which makes the total area of 1-25 acres. In para-10, also he again admitted the filing of application by the petitioner, but stated that a date was fixed for demarcation, but petitioner did not come to the site.

The learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents No.7 and 8 both submit that if directions are issued to respondent No.4 for the fresh demarcation they will cooperate with him for the said purpose.

In view of above, this petition is disposed of with the directions to respondents No.1 and 4 to carry out the demarcation of aforesaid land in presence of the petitioner and respondents No.7 and 8. This exercise should be completed within a period of one month from today but after issuing notices to the petitioner as well as respondents No.7 and 8.

Copy of this order may be transmitted to respondents No.1 and 4 for compliance.

JUDGE