2016 P Cr (PLP)

SHAHAB SARKI, J.

This revision application under sections 439 and 435, Cr.P.C. has preferred against the order dated 19.11.2013 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur in Criminal Complaint No. 40/2013 Re-Rabnawaz v. Ghulam Hussain and others, whereby the application under sections 3/4 read with 7 , Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 of the applicant Rab Nawaz was dismissed.

2. Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Shaikh learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that the impugned order has been passed without consideration of the facts before the Court. He has further contended that even the revenue record clearly shows that the applicant purchased the subject property vide registered sale-deed dated 30.11.2012 and such entry was made in the record of rights on 02.03.2013 and it confirms that the applicant is the owner of the said plot bearing S.No. 853 admeasuring 1-13 acres situated at Baharo Dero Taluka Gambat District, Khairpur. He further submits that the concerned Magistrate in his report has clearly stated that the revenue record entry duly exists in the name of the applicant but the Mukhtiarkar has also stated in his report that the respondents are in possession of the property since last 10 years. The learned Counsel argues that the Mukhtiarkar is only supposed to state with reference to the entry and he has no right to mention anything about the possession of the property. He further submits that the report of SHO is also inconclusive and he has been illegally dispossessed therefore, his application was maintainable and should have been decided on merits.

3. Mr. Moulana Shehzado Dreho Counsel for the private respondents has submitted that no illegality has been pointed in the impugned order and the applicants have been in possession of the suit property since almost a decade and they have purchased the same from the previous owners.

4. Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi learned DPG has supported the impugned order.

5. I have heard the parties and perused the record. The applicant has annexed a legal notice issued by his Counsel to the respondents on 27.05.2013 in which it has been stated on his behalf that the respondents have been cultivating the crops on the subject property for several years and through the said legal notice he demanded the possession of the said land as well as the crops. The report of the Mukhtiarkar also suggests that though the entry is available in the record in respect to the owner's rights of the applicant but the possession has been shown to be with the respondents since last 10 years. It appears that there is a Civil dispute between the parties regarding the subject property. The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 has been promulgated to curb dispossession from immoveable property, if made by a certain class of persons who are part of land 'Mafia'; and where contractual issues are involved then the matter of possession/dispossession comes within the ambit of the Civil Courts. In the instant case the report of Mukhtiarkar regarding the possession with the respondents is re-confirmed by the legal notice issued by the applicant's Counsel to the present respondents. In the above circumstances I do not find any illegality or impropriety with the impugned order. This revision application in such circumstances is dismissed. MH/R-7/Sindh Revision dismissed.