Cr.Rev 84/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana

Sindh High Court · 2023 · Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar

ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA. Cr. Revision Appln. No.S- 84 of 2021. Date of hearing Order with signature of Judge. 1.For orders on office objection as flag A. 2. For hearing of main case. Applicant (Hamid Ali Mahessar) : Through Mr.Imtiaz Ali Panhwar, advocate a/w applicant. The State : Through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. P.G. Respondents No.3,4, : Through Mr. Mushtaque Ahmed Chandio, advocate 6,7 & 9. a/w respondents. Respondents No.8 : Through Mr. Dad Muhamamd M. Magsi, advocate. Date of hearing : 13.11.2023. O R D E R . Through this criminal revision application, applicant Hamid Ali Mahessar has assailed order dated 24.8.2021 passed by 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar (trial Court) vide Cr.Misc. Appln. No.12 of 2021 re: Hamid Ali Mahessar v. Qurban Ali and others whereby the complaint in terms of Section 3 and 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 filed by the applicant was dismissed on the ground that report submitted by Mukhtiarkar concerned as well as SHO was contradictory to the facts and circumstances of the complaint, hence instant revision application has been maintained. The case of the applicant is that he is the owner of Survey No.239 (1-17) acres and Survey No.237 (1-03) acres situated in deh Roni Tapo Khondi Taluka Mehar District Dadu. Such entry in revenue record of rights was mutated vide Entry No.108 Deh Form VII B. After calling report from the concerned Mukhtiarkar and SHO, the trial Court dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 24.08.2021. Learned Additional P.G supported the impugned order and opposed the revision application in hand. Mr.Dad Muhammad Magsi, advocate for the respondent No.8 has no objection to grant of instant application as the respondent No.8 has settled the dispute with the applicant outside the Court. Mr. Mushtaque Ahmed Chandio, advocate for the respondents No.3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 while respondent No.5 is not in attendance. As reported, he is in abroad. Mr.Chandio submits that basically land belongs to government which was granted in favour of answering respondents for which Revenue Appeal No. Nil of 2021 filed by them is still pending adjudication. Whereas the applicant has also filed civil suit for declaration and possession which too is pending adjudication before Senior Civil Judge Mehar, hence the complaint filed by him is not maintainable and the trial Court has rightly rejected the same. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material made available before me on record. Mukhtiarkar Mehar submitted report dated 04.5.2021 before the trial Court whereby he had categorically mentioned that according to record the Entry No.80 of VF VII A out of Survey No.237 and 239 of deh Roni Tapo Khondi Taluka Mehar is entered in the name of Rajib Ali. Subsequently it was sold out to applicant vide Entry No.108 of VF VII B out of Survey No.237 and 239, therefore, the applicant is owner of the said land. As far as remaining land is concerned, same being barren is lying uncultivated, however, same is in possession of the applicant.

Opening of the judgment. Loading the full judgment on LexPK…