ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

C.P No.D- 899 of 2014

DATE             ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

                        1. For orders on office objection.

                        2. For Katcha Peshi                    

27.03.2015.

 None present for the petitioner.

Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, Additional A.G along with Abdul Jamil Hashmi, Assistant Director Legal, ACE Hyderabad on behalf of respondent No.8 and Qazi Amir Hassan Supervising Tapedar and Muhammad Ali Parihar Tapedar, Taluka Chamber.

                                                =

            On last date of hearing also nobody was present and matter was adjourned with a note of caution that if none will appear on the next date the petition will be dismissed.

            In the prayer clause “A” generalized prayer has been made that respondents No.2 to 9 are bound to protect the rights of the petitioner and subsequently directions have been sought against respondent No.8 to conduct proper inquiry against the respondents No.2 to 4.

            Today, the authorized officer of respondent No.8 has submitted the comments in which it is mentioned that the petitioner submitted an application to the Anti-Corruption Department wherein it was alleged that he is owner of land measuring 10 acres at Deh  Sutiari Taluka Chamber but the khata of applicant’s land was illegally changed in the names of Abdul Jabbar, Saleh and others with the connivance of D.D.O (Revenue). In the comments the respondent No.8 further disclosed that on receiving the complaint of the petitioner, the Chairman Anti-Corruption Department ordered for an inquiry and during the course of inquiry it was found that the present petitioner and his brother had already sold out their land in the year 1985 through registered sale deeds.

            Since the inquiry has already been conducted which was in fact the prayer of the petitioner therefore at this stage no further indulgence is required when the petitioner is also called absent. The petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner may avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law if he is not satisfied with the inquiry conducted by the Anti-Corruption Department.

                                                                                                  JUDGE

                                                                        JUDGE

Ali Haider/P.A