1985CLC1985 (PLP)

AJMAL MIAN, J.

The petitioner through his petition has impugned the order dated 17-6-1981 passed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 and the public notice of respondent No.3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner No. 2 was inter alia the owner of agricultural land, measuring 190 acres and 22 ghuntas situated in Deh Kadi Kazia Tape Waryaso Taluka and District Badin, he allegedly gifted the above land as per averment in the petition to Petitioner No.1 on 30-3-1980. Respondent No.4 by a notification gazetted in the Gazette of 8th October, 1981 in exercise of power contained in section 13 of the Court of Wards Act, 1905 with the previous sanction of the Government of Sind assumed the superintendence of property of petitioner No.2 Muhammad Hashim son of Haji Lakhano Sarejo mentioned therein. It is the case of petitioner No.3.a, 3.b and 3.c that they have allegedly entered into an agreement of purchase with petitioner No.1 in respect of the above land and that respondent No.2 who is subordinate of respondent No.1 under his order, directed respondent No.3, Sub-Registrar, Badin not to register a sale-deed. It has also been averred that respondent No.4 as the Court of Wards is interfering with the petitioners' alleged possession. It seems that after the filing of the above writ petition at the direction of respondents Nos.1 and 2, respondent No.3 has already registered a sale-deed. In this view of the matter, the petitioners have no cause of action in respect of the above direction issued by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3.

2. It was then contended by Mr. Ghulam M. Rang that though no notification under the Sind Court of Wards Act has been issued in respect of the land in question, but respondent No.4 is intertering with the petitioners' possession. In this regard, it may be pertinent to reproduce the letter No.7-112-81-Rev-I (III), dated 26th September, 1981 of Section Officer of the Government of Sind, Revenue Department, to the Additional Commissioner/Court of Wards, Hyderabad, which reads as follows:- No. 7-112-81-Rev-I(III) Government of Sind, Revenue Department, Hyderabad, dated 26-9-1981. To, The Additional Commissioner/ Court of Wards, Hyderabad. Sub: ASSUMPTION OF SUPERINTENDENCE OF THE PROPERTY OF MUHAMMAD HASHIM SAREJO UNDER COURT OF WARDS--REQUEST FROM MUHAMMAD KHAN S/o MUHAMMAD HASHIM SAREJO, DISTRICT BADIN. Ref: Your letter No.CW/689/81, dated 11-7-1981. MEMORANDUM: The Government of Sind in Revenue Department is pleased to accord sanction to the assumption of land admeasuring 102-33] acres situated in Deh Dafri and Patar Taluka Badin and Deh Miliarah, Taluka Golarchi, under the Superintendence of Court of Wards under section 4(1) read with section 5(1) (C)(i)(ii) of Court of Wards Act, 1905. As regards the area admeasuring 190-22 acres gifted out by Mr. Muhammad Hashim to his wife will be taken up subsequently if the Commissioner cancels the gift. You are requested to furnish copy of Notification regarding assumption of property of Muhammad Rahim Sarejo. Sd/- Section Officer to Govt. of Sind. Revenue Department.

No-CW-985 of 1981, Office of the Addl: Commr; /Court of Wards; Hyderabad, dated 28-9-1981. Copy forwarded with compliments to the Deputy Commissioner Badin for further necessary action. Addl: Commissioner/Court of Wards, Hyderabad Division." From the above-quoted letter and also from the above notification gazetted in the Gazette dated 8th October, 1981 referred to hereinabove, it is evident that no notification for assuming the superintendence of the land in dispute has yet been issued, though the Commissioner by his order dated 18-10-1982 cancelled the mutation in respect of the above gift. We are of the view that till the time any notification is issued in accordance with law, respondent No.4 has no power to deal with the land in dispute and the petitioners shall also have no cause to impugn the above notification as it does not include the land in dispute.

3. We, therefore, dispose of the above petition with the direction that respondent No.4 shall not deal with the land in dispute till the time a requisite notification is issued. It will be open to the above petitioners 3.a, 3.b and 3.c to represent their case before respondent No.4 or before the Provincial Government for getting redress, if any, if their alleged rights are threatened. There will be no order as to costs. A.A. Order accordingly.