1975 P Cr (PLP)

The respondent Ghulam Kadir did not enter into the witness‑box and remained absent on the date fixed. Mr. Imdad Ali Agha, his Advocate, was asked by me if the respondent Ghulam Kadir Bhutto wanted to give evidence but the learned Advocate stated that the respondent did not want to examine himself.

11. On a consideration of all the material that has been placed before me the points that require examination are as follows:‑-- (i) Whether applicant Muhammad Nawaz was in possession of the land in question as Manager of Air‑Marshal Asghar Khan? (ii) Whether applicant Muhammad Nawaz was forcibly dispossessed of the lands? (iii) Whether the circumstances of dispossession were of a nature as created an apprehension of breach of the peace? (iv) Whether the applicant Muhammad Nawaz has been dispossessed by any of the respondents? (v) Whether applicant Muhammad Nawaz or his principal is entitled to possession of the land in dispute? Point No. 1.‑The determination of this point presents no difficulty. As it is the land belongs to Air‑Marshal Asghar Khan and there is no other claimant. There is also no evidence in derogation of the assertion of Muhammad Nawaz that Air‑Marshal Asghar Khan used to get a part of the land cultivated by haris and that the applicant Muhammad Nawaz was the Manager of Air‑Marshal Asghar khan. All the witnesses examined by the applicant on the point of possession have unanimously stated that the land in question was being managed by applicant Muhammad Nawaz. Most of these witnesses have stated that until 10‑7‑1972 Muhammad Nawaz was undisputedly in possession of the land in question on behalf of Air- Marshal Asghar Khan. However, in the nature of the circumstances in the case the property in dispute being agricultural land, such persons who were employed or engaged by Muhammad Nawaz for the cultivation of the land will also be deemed to be in possession of the land at least to the extent to which they cultivated the land. In the result my finding is that on 10‑7‑1972, the applicant Muhammad Nawaz was in possession of the land in question which land was being cultivated by him or through the haris who were also in possession of the land to the extent to which they cultivated the same. Points Nos. 2 and 3.--‑I have already given a finding that applicant Muhammad Nawaz was in possession of the land. The position on evidence is that applicant Muhammad Nawaz had lost the possession of the land and had been dispossessed. In regard to such dispossession applicant Muhammad Nawaz had also lodged a report at Dubber Police Station. Evidence of applicant Muhammad Nawaz and his witnesses clearly establish that Muhammad Nawaz had lost possession of the land on 10‑7‑1972. Te version in regard to the incident that occurred on 10‑7‑1972 is that about 50 or 60 persons had come on the lands in question by force or show of force and taken over possession of the land and the bungalow standing thereon. Even in the first information report that had been lodged by Muhammad Nawaz it had been clearly stated that such persons who had come on the land, had either by force or show of force taken over possession of the land. It is also stated that these persons were armed with deadly weapons.

12. It has clearly come in the evidence of Muhammad Nawaz and his witnesses that they were unable to go to the lands as the same was in posses sion of Ghulam Kadir Bhutto and his associates who had taken over possession. Applicant Muhammad Nawaz had stated in his evidence that during the entire year of 1973, no quarrel or disturbance had taken place on the land but in a question asked by me at the suggestion of Mr. Pesh Imam the applicant stated that he could not take possession of the land because there was danger to him. In like terms is the evidence of his witnesses who have slated that they were unable to go on the lands because they had a fear.

13. In cases of this nature when dispossession is alleged, and it is found as a fact that after dispossession, the person or persons who have dis possessed the aggrieved party continue to occupy the property, such occupation by itself may be a sufficient deterrent to the person lawfully entitled to custody for entering on the land. An attempt by the person entitled to possession of property is always likely to meet with violence all the time of recovering the possession. The mere fact that the person in possession after having obtained such possession wrongfully, is holding peaceful possession to the deprivation of the person lawfully entitled to such possession, is not sufficient to show that there is no likelihood of breach 8 of the peace. In the society in which we live when a large number of crimes are committed in regard to possession of land, it would be reasonable to assume that a person lawfully entitled to possession, would after depriva tion, attempt to regain his possession but in most cases the person in wrongful possession may keep him out of possession by creating circum stances resulting in fear in the mind of the person lawfully entitled to possession, so that the latter may take no steps to regain his possession privately and has recourse to proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. or any other legal proceedings to get back his possession.

14. On the state of evidence in this case there appears to be no doubt that applicant Muhammad Nawaz has lost possession of the land under circumstances which indicate that the possession was lost on account of creation of circumstances which involved a breach of the peace.

15. On the other hand the only contesting respondent Ghulam Kadir Bhutto has also not shown or attempted to establish that Muhammad Nawaz has not lost his possession or that the possession was lost by him in due course of law and without resort to violence. The case set up by respon dent Ghulam Kadir Bhutto is that he has nothing to do with the lands in question nor was he in any manner responsible for dispossession of applicant Muhammad Nawaz. The cross‑examination on behalf of Ghulam Kadir Bhutto is entirely directed to establishing his false implication and showing that regardless of the fact that Muhammad Nawaz may have lost possession he was in no manner responsible for such dispossession. Ghulam Kadir Bhutto had in his written statement stated that he had nothing to do with the land nor did he claim any interest in the land either in regard to ownership or possession.

16. On the state of evidence that exists on the record the conclusion is inescapable that Muhammad Nawaz had been dispossessed of the land under circumstances which created a breach of the peace. Points Nos. 2 and 3 are answered accordingly. Point No. 4.

‑Although I have come to the conclusion that Muhammad Nawaz was in possession of the land and lost possession thereof in circum stances which attract the provisions of section 145, Cr. P. C. the question also arises as to who had dispossessed Muhammad Nawaz and reason is that this Court has to pass an order not only in regard to return of posses sion in favour of Muhammad Nawaz, but this Court has also to consider as to who should be ordered to hand over possession to Muhammad Nawaz. In the present case the first information report was lodged by Muhammad Nawaz at Dubber Police Station on 10‑7‑1972 at 5 p.m. Such report was recorded by Sub‑Inspector Manzoor Ali who has been examined as a Court witness because none of the two parties wanted to examine him. Since Sub -Inspector Manzoor Ali bad carried out the investigation into the case and` had also visited the scene of occurrence, it became necessary to examine him and I have therefore, examined him as a Court witness. This Police Officer has stated that in the report that was lodged by applicant Muhammad Nawaz he had not named Ghulam Kadir Bhutto or his brother Abdul Fateh Bhutto, In the report a copy of which is available on the record, it is stated that at about 12 noon 50 persons came on the land of Air‑Marshal Asgthar Khan. Out of these 50 persons the applicant named respondents Allahdino Buriro and Siddiq Shah. In such context the report runs as follows:‑-- "I identified one of them as Allahdino Buriro. He was armed with a gun. I shall identify the remaining three persons when shown to me. I also identified Siddiq Shah who was standing on the land among other persons. Rest were not known to me." In such context Mr. Pesh Imam the learned Advocate for the applicant has by cross‑examination attempted to discredit Sub‑inspector Manzoor Ali. The suggestions in cross‑examination were that although applicant Muhammad Nawaz bad mentioned the name of Ghulam Kadir Bhutto arid Abdul Fateh Bhutto as the persons who had committed trespass on the land of Asghar Khan, the Police Officer had omitted mention of their name in the first information report. It has been further suggested in cross‑examination that when the police officer went to the land of Air‑Marshal Asghar Khan. Ghulam Kadir Bhutto and Abdul Fateh Bhutto were present on the lands. In such context the police officer has clearly stated that applicant Muhammad Nawaz did not mention the names of Ghulam Kadir Bhutto or Abdul Fateh, Bhutto as the persons who had committed trespass or as the persons who were available on the land of Asahar Khan when the police officer along with his subordinates went there in connection with the investigation. 1n such context the police officer stated that he did not find any person in the bungalow of Air‑Marshal Asghar Khan.

17. In such context I may also refer to the application made by applicant Muhammad Nawaz in the Court of Civil Judge and First Class: Magistrate, Rohri, under section 145, Cr.P.C. after 18 days of the incident. Five paras of the said application have been reproduced earlier in para. 3 of this judgment. I will now refer to para. 10 of the said application In the said para. applicant Muhammad Nawaz had stated that he had made detailed enquiries and had come to know that the persons who had occupied the farm were led by respondent Abdul Kadir Bhutto (which may mean Ghulam Kadir Bhutto). The applicant has further gone on to say that the said Abdul Kadir Bhutto was a prominent worker of Pakistan People's Party which was in power. It would thus seem that even after i& days of the incident when applicant Muhammad Nawaz filed the application under section 145, Cr. P. C. in the Court of the Civil Judge and First Class Magistrate, Rohri, he did not mention the name of Ghulam Kadir Bhutto as a person whom he might have seen on the land on 10‑7‑1972. Curiously, the applicant had to make some "detailed enquiries" and as a result of such enquiries he had come to know that the farm had been occupied by persons who were led by respondent Ghulam Kadir Bhutto.

18. It has also come in the evidence of most of the witnesses that respondent Ghulam Kadir Bhutto was known to there, as according to them, Ghulam Kadir Bhutto was a prominent worker of the Pakistan People's party; and that being so, Muhammad Nawaz applicant should hive had no -difficulty in mentioning his name as a trespasser in the first information report or at least in the original application under section 145, Cr. P. C Muhammad Fazal (A. W. 3) who was the Manager on the neighbouring farm of Air Vice‑Marshal Akhtar Khan has stated in his evidence that he knew Ghulam Kadir, and it is further stated by applicant Muhammad Nawaz that before he went to lodge the report at Dubber Police Station, Muhammad Fazal had met him. In such context even if Muhammad Nawaz had himself not seen Ghulam Kadir Bhutto, he should have come to know that Ghulam Kadir Bhutto was leading the persons who had trespassed on the land in question. It would thus seem that even Muhammad Fazal did not gee Ghulam Kadir Bhutto. In such view of the matter the omission of that name of Ghulam Kadir Bhutto in the first information, report assumes importance.

19. In the evidence that has come on the record I have not been able to escape the conclusion that the applicant and his witnesses have attempted to show that the applicant was dispossessed of the lands because the lands belonged to Air‑Marshal Asghar Khan, who as is well known is the leader of Tehriq‑e‑Istiqlal, a party opposing the Pakistan People's Party. Some of the witnesses of the applicant have stated that Ghulam Kadir Bhutto had on 10‑7‑1972 come on the farm and stated that Air‑Marshal Asghar Khan had been arrested; and that Mr. Mumtaz Ali Bhutto, the then Chief Minister of Sind, had sent him and his companions to take forcible possession of the land. There is no evidence absolutely to support such assertion and I may also mention that most of the witnesses of the applicant have not stated so. On the other hand, some of the witnesses of the applicant have gone on to state that Ghulam Kadir Bhutto had after taking possession of the land in question asked them to attend the meetings of the Pakistan People's Party and abuse Air‑Marshal Asghar Khan, in case they wanted to retain their lands as cultivators. It would seem that the applicant has attempted to give this case a rigid political colour. In such view of the matter it becomes necessary to appraise the evidence of these witnesses so far as they allege, that Ghulam Kadir Bhutto had taken possession of the land or was in, occupation of the same.

20. As stated above the name of Ghulam Kadir Bhutto does not transpire in the first information report and even the application under section 145, Cr. P. C. does not state that Ghulam Kadir Bhutto was leading such persons who had committed trespass on the land. It is also clear on the record that Ghulam Kadir Bhutto was not available on the land when c ‑Police Officer Manzoor Ali visited the scene. However, all the witnesses of 4he applicant who have been examined in Court have stated that Ghulam Kadir Bhutto had come and taken forcible possession of the land. The question that then arises is whether these witnesses should be believed to the extent to which they state that Ghulam Kadir Bhutto had committed trespass. In the first information report the applicant Muhammad Nawaz had named two witnesses namely, Qasim Ali and Muhammad Nawaz, and likewise in the application under section 145, Cr. P. C. he had named these two witnesses. In the first information report applicant Muhammad Nawaz had stated as follows:‑-- "Those accused persons fired 8‑9 aerial shots. As a result of which I did not go near and went back. Our haris Qasim Ali and Muhammad Nawaz were present. They also saw the entire facts (incident), Qasim Ali told me I and Muhammad Nawaz were standing at the watercourse where these accused persons entered the land of Mr. Asghar Khan.' They entered into the bungalow and have taken away four weapons namely, one pistol, and two guns." The names of the witnesses who have been examined before me were not mentioned in the first information report or in the application under section 145, Cr. P. C., and the two witnesses Qasim Ali and Muhammad Nawaz who were mentioned in these two documents have nor, been examined before me. The witnesses who have been examined before me have been called from Sialkot, Sahiwal, Multan and various other places. These witnesses have however, given an explanation for their abandoning their land of Air Marshal Asghar Khan and state that since they were harassed by Ghulam Kadir and his followers they had left the land of Asghar Khan. The evidence of these witnesses is also conflicting and contradictory. The first two witnesses of applicant are Khamiso and Sadiq Ali and they did not at all state that the persons who had committed the trespass had fired at Muhammad Nawaz or at any one else. The other witnesses who were examined subsequently have introduced a story that Ghulam Kadir Bhutto and his companions started firing at applicant Muhammad Nawaz when he bad come on the land. Some of the witness have even stated that they saw Ghulam Kadir Bhutto and his companions beating Muhammad Nawaz applicant but most of the witnesses have not so stated in their evidence. The witnesses have made contradictory and conflicting, statements even in regard to possession of the land after 10‑7‑1972. Some of the witnesses state that they had been giving the zamindari sharp of produce to Ghulam Kadir Bhutto but other witnesses state that they used to give the zamindari share of produce to Abdul Fateh (who is not a respondent) but who is a brother of Ghulam Kadir. Court witness Badruddin stated that the respon dents were not on the land. Applicant Muhammad Nawaz has even gone to the extent of stating that in the presence of the police officers who had come on the scene Ghulam Kadir Bhutto bad loaded six hundred maunds of wheat and carried the same away. The witnesses who also should be having a share in the wheat that is alleged to have been carried away by Ghulam Radir Bhutto do not speak of theft of wheat. It has also come in the evidence of the witnesses that Ghulam Kadir owns a restaurant at Sukkur and he used to stay at Sukkur but it was Abdul Fateh, a brother of Ghulam Kadir, who used to manage the land. All the same Abdul Fateh is not listed as a respondent.

21. The written statement of Ghulam Kadir Bhutto that has been filed in this Court clearly states that he had no interest in the land at all nor had he committed any trespass. It is additionally stated by Ghulam Kadir Bhutto that he had been involved in this case for political reasons. I may alto refer to a report made by Mukhtiarkar of Rohri to the Assistant Commissioner, Sukkur, on 21‑7‑1973. This report has been referred to in the order of Ziaul Haq Channa, J. and even Mr. Pesh Imam had referred to that report during the proceedings before me. In this report also the name of Ghulam Kadir Bhutto does not transpire. There is a further circumstance which requires consideration in this case. The applicant has not produced any person from the Revenue Department to show that Ghulam Kadir Bhutto or any person on his behalf had paid the charges of Revenue Department in respect of land assessment and water rate. The applicant could also have examined the Tapedar of the 8 beat or summoned at least the Field Book from the Revenue Authorities to show as to who was in actual possession of the land after 10‑7‑1972. Such evidence could have been easily produced by the applicant and the same might have shown whether Ghulam Kadir Bhutto had any interest or was in cultivating possession as a zamindar, of land in question. Such omission on the hart of the applicant is indeed conspicuous and not insignificant. At this stage I may also refer to the evidence of Yar Muhammad, the Pro secution Deputy Superintendent of Police of Sukkur District, who had been called by the applicant to produce the police, papers of the case that applicant Muhammad Nawaz had lodged with Dubber Police on 10‑7‑1972. Although all the police papers are on the record of this case, no reference was made to the same by the learned Advocates at the time of arguments. Since it has been alleged by the applicant that the case lodged by him at Dubber Police Station has been treated unfavourably by the Police Officer Manzoor Ali, I have seen the police papers in this case. I find that on the day following the lodging of the report vie on 11‑7‑1972, Sub‑Inspector Manzoor Ali had recorded the statements of 25 persons and none of them had stated that respondent Ghulam Kadir Bhutto had taken any part in the transaction which resulted in the eviction or dispossession of applicant Muhammad Nawaz. What is more that respondents Siddique Shah and Allabdino bad actually been arrested in that case.

22. Further to this, there are documents on the Misc. part of the record, which are reports that the Mukhtiarkar of Rohri Mr. Badruddin had submitted to the Assistant Commissioner and Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Saddar Sub‑Division, Sukkur, in connection with the present application. These reports have been submitted by the Mukhtiarkar to the Magistrate on 27‑9‑1972 an 3 21‑7-1973. I have carefully perused these reports and the name of Ghulam Kadir Bhutto does not even transpire in these reports. What is more that even after the order of attachment of land the zamindari share of produce has been collected by the Assistant Commissioner of Saddar Sub‑Division, Sukkur, and kept in his custody under the orders of this Court. It is stated by the applicant's witnesses that Ghulam Kadir Bhutto had been managing the lands and had even supplied the seeds to the harts. If such allegation be correct I see no reason why Ghulam Kadir Bhutto should not have even demurred the action of this Court in appoint ment of Receiver and there is nothing to indicate that he had claimed any zamindari share of the produce.

23. Coming to the case of Allahdino Buriro and Kirir respondents I find that although they have been shown as respondents in the application, no witness besides the applicant Muhammad Nawaz has stated anything against them. It is only applicant Muhammad Nawaz who had stated that when he had been fired at he took shelter in the watercourse, and thereafter five or six persons came up to him out of whom he knew Ghulam Kadir Bhutto, Allahdino Buriro, Kirir and Siddique Shah. He went on to, state that these persons had asked him to stand with his hands up where after they started searching his person and gave laths blows and fist blows to him. The proceedings against Siddique Shah have been dropped by applicant Muhammad Nawaz whereas Allahdino and Kirir have not con tested the case and have remained absent during proceedings. With regard to Allahdino and Siddique Shah, I have as stated above referred to the police papers which show that these two respondents had actually been arrested by police in connection with the report lodged by applicant Muhammad Nawaz at Dubber Police Station on 10‑7‑1972. However, Sub-Inspector Manzoor Ali in his evidence before this Court stated that he had not arrested any person and further went on to state that during the course of investigation some documents were received from the Revenue Authorities, which documents showed the names of Allahdino Buriro and Siddique Shah as harts on the land in question. He stated that for such reason he did not arrest Allahdino and Siddique Shah. He was further cross‑examined by Mr. Pesh Imam and he stated that the list containing the names of the harts including Allahdino and Siddique Shah was not in custody of the witness, because the same had been forwarded alongwith the original case papers to the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate for obtaining summary for disposal of the case. On such statement of the witness Mr. Pesh Imam referred him to the report submitted by the Mukhtiarkar of Rohri to the Assistant Commis sioner, Saddar Sub‑Division, Sukkur, dated 2 11‑7‑1973. This report has been exhibited in the case and is marked as Exh.

19. Mr. Pesh Imam then asked the police officer to referred to the list and state whether the names of Allahdino and Siddique Shah have been mentioned as harts in the said report. The a witness stated that the names of these two persons did not appear in the report of the Mukhtiarkar (Exh. 19). I am of the view that the witness while giving evidence in this Court was confused. This witness had been transferred from the police station and had to be called from Lahore where be had gone for studies in the Detective Training School. The applicant bad summoned the police papers in connection with the case that he had reported at Dubber Police Station. At page 62 of the police file I find a reference by Mr. Ghulam Mustafa, Sub‑Divisional Police Officer, Saddar II, Sukkur, wherein it is stated as follows:‑-- "On 20‑7‑1972 the accused Siddique Shah and Allahdino Buriro appeared before

1. O. The accused were interrogated who denied to have committed the above offence, and stated that the complainant party has lodged false report at police station against them. The accused produced their bail bond of the Sessions Court which was attached with the case papers." The above statement in the letter of Mr. Ghulam Mustafa would clearly indicate that either respondents Allahdino Buriro and Siddique Shah had been arrested or they apprehended their arrest and for such reason moved the Sessions Court for bail before arrest. Indeed it is not clear on the record whether they were arrested but the endorsement of Mr. Ghulam Mustafa would appear to show that if they were not arrested they were at least sought to be arrested so that they had moved the Sessions Court, for bail before arrest which had been granted to them. In regard to the other state ment that the names of Allahdino Buriro and Siddique Shah did not appear in the list of harts given by the Mukhtiarkar of Revenue Department, it appears that the name of Allahdino was at least mentioned in Exh. 19 which is the report dated 21‑7‑1973 of Mukhtiarkar of Rohri submitted to the Assistant Commissioner, Saddar Sub‑Division, Sukkur. At page 2 of the said report the name of Allahdino son of Karimdino appears and the report states that he was in cultivating possession of the land. In any case the report (Exh. 19) was submitted after a year of the incident of dispossession and it cannot therefore, be conclusively stated if Allahdino and Siddique Shah had been shown in the Revenue Records as the haris in cultivating possession before 10‑7‑1972. Badruddin has stated that this Allahdino is not the respondent in this case. However, the established facts of the case are that no other witness besides the applicant Muhammad Nawaz has named Allahdino and Kirir as the companions of Ghulam Kadir Bhutto. As it is I have doubted the case of the applicant in so far as respondent Ghulam Kadir Bhutto is concerned. To such extent the evidence which indeed is common will react even in regard to respondents Allahdino and Kirir.

24. I would also refer to Exh. 19 for the purpose of finding out as to who were actually in cultivating possession of the land in question. On 25‑6‑1973, my learned brother Ziaul Haq Channa, J. disposed of the applica tion under section 145(4), Cr. P. C. and gave a direction that the genuine harts of the land should be allowed access to the land for the purpose of ploughing and watering it and generally doing any other things necessary for raising cultivation thereon. Pursuant to the orders of this Court an enquiry was held by the Mukhtiarkar of Rohri who submitted this report to the Assistant Com missioner, Saddar Sub‑Division, Sukkur. Although the Mukhtiarkar of Rohri has not been examined by any party as a witness in this case the report forms a part of the judicial record and had indeed been relied on by Mr. Pesh Imam for the purpose of contradicting Sub‑Inspector Manzoor Ali and for such reason the report has been made an exhibit in this case and Badruddin Court witness has produced the same. In this report it is stated that there were 17 harts on the land out of whom 7 have been examined by the applicant as his witnesses before me. However, it is also stated in the report that on a consultation of the Revenue Record it had appeared to the Mukhtiarkar of Rohri that the names of these haris were not entered in the record of the other years except for the year 1970‑71 and 1971‑

72. In the same report the Mukhtiarkar has also considered the question of right of tenancy of these harts who have appeared as witnesses and has stated as follows :-- "The enquiry was fixed for 21‑7‑1973 and all those who claimed to be harts were sent for and their statements recorded. The local haris in cultivating possession stated on oath that they were residing near the lands of Air‑Marshal Asghar Khan and at the time Air‑Marshal Asghar Khan got the possession of the lands in 1967 it was a jungle. Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Manager of the Farm employed them as haris and they cleared the jungle and made 1967‑68, and he imported haris from the Punjab and other places and wanted to settle them there. They approached the Manager not to dispossess them of the right of tenancy but he kept them away on the threats and force of guns. These haris worked on the land for one year and then left for Punjab. After they had left the lands and gone to Punjab the same local haris came in possession of the land since 1972‑73." Further in the same report the Mukhtiarkar has also stated as follows:‑-- "The statement of Mr. Muhammad Nawaz is very clear that only haris Raj Muhammad, Hayat Ali, Shoukat Ali and Qasim Ali were cultivat ing on the farm up to 1972‑73 and the others left the farm and sent to their own lands in Taluka Panoakil. This shows that the other haris as shown above are not even admitted by him and the entry in, the record during the years 1970‑71 and 1971‑72 is not supported. Even otherwise the entry in the Record‑of‑Rights is not conclusive proof of the right of harap." On a consideration of the Revenue Record and as a result of the local enquiry the Mukhtiarkar of Rohri came to the conclusion that the local haris which had been named by him in para. 7 of the said report should be allowed access to the lands of Air Marshal Asghar Khan for the purpose of plough ing and watering the lands. The report also stated that these haris had been ploughing and watering the lands and were in cultivating possession.

25. On a consideration of all the evidence and circumstances of this case 1 am left in no doubt that the local haris who were sought to be evicted or had actually been evicted by Muhammad Nawaz retrieved their possession in July 1972. It also appears to me that Ghulam Kadir Bhutto respondent was not even present on the spot at the time when the other haris may have taken possession. I purposely used the word "may" because it is not necessary for me to give a finding in regard to the acts of any other person beside, the respondents who have bean impleaded in the application under section 145, Cr. P. C. The name of Ghulam Kadir Bhutto was not men tioned in the first information report and even in the application under section 145, Cr. P. C. which was filed after 18 days his name was not men tioned as one of those persons who were physically present and had committed trespass on the land. It seems that on account of the political disputes existing between Air‑Marshal Asghar Khan and the Chief of the Pakistan People's Party this case has been given a political colour. All the witnesses who have appeared before me attempted to show that Air‑Marshal Asghar Khan was dispossessed of the lands because the People's Party and the Chairman of the party who was then the President of Pakistan wanted to teach a lesson to Air‑Marshal Asghar Khan. Some witnesses have even gone to the extent of stating that Ghulam Kadir Bhutto and his companions told them that they could continue to live and cultivate the land provided they started abusing Air‑Marshal Asghar Khan and help the Pakistan People's Party. It is indeed unfortunate that this case should have been given a political colour. Some of the witnesses have even gone on to state that Ghulam Kadir Bhutto bad come there and claimed himself to be a cousin of Mumtaz Ali Bhutto the then Chief Minister of Sind and had further stated that it was the order of the then Chief Minister of Sind to take over the possession of the land of Air‑Marshal Asghar Khan, As this was not at all the version of the applicant Muhammad Nawaz in first information report and the circumstances clearly militate against inference of that nature from a case which according to me is at most a case of trespass on the land on account of private disputes between the zamindar and the haris. I, therefore, hold that it is not established on the record that the three contesting respondents had committed trespass on the land of Air‑Marshal Asghar Khan. Point No. 5.

‑The last question is what should be the relief in this case. It is abundantly clear and is not contested that the lands in dispute do belong to Air‑Marshal Asghar Khan. It is also very clear and is not con tested that until the 10th of July 1972, Air‑Marshal Asghar Khan managed these lands through his Manager Muhammad Nawaz applicant. The only contesting respondent has not established or even alleged a claim in the nature of a title or right of possession to the land in question. Ghulam. Kadir Bhutto had initially in his written statement stated that he had nothing to do with the lands in question as he was neither the owner nor the occupier of it. In these circumstances there can be no manner of doubt that as a result of these proceedings a declaration should be given that extra‑Marshal Asghar Khan is entitled to possession of these lands which he may continue to hold and possess through the applicant Muhammad Nawaz. There is nothing to indicate that these proceedings are collusive.

26. The land in question is at present under attachment and in custody of the Court. This Court had ordered the Assistant Commissioner, Saddar Sub‑Division, Sukkur, to manage the same and protect the interest of the applicant during the pendency of this case. The Assistant Commissioner had indeed been looking after the lands and has detailed the subordinates the Revenue Department to manage the land and collect the crop on, behalf of Air‑Marshal Asghar Khan. The zamindari share of the crop longing to Air‑Marshal Asghar Khan is kept in deposit with the Revenue authorities which shall be given to him. Since I have found that applicant Muhammad Nawaz is entitled to possession of the land I direct that the Assistant Commissioner, Sadar Sub‑Division, Sukkur shall hand over the today of the land to applicant Muhammad Nawaz who shall hold the same on behalf of Air‑Marshal Asghar Khan. The applicant shall retain posses sion and be entitled to it against any person. The question is with regard to the haris who are presently cultivating the lands. Since in these proceed ings I have not held any factual enquiry on that aspect of the case, and under the law, it is to be determined by the Revenue Authorities on the basis of local enquiries, I direct that the present haris who are in cultivating possession shall continue to remain in cultivating possession until such time that they are evicted in due course of law through the Revenue Officers or the civil Court. Zisul Haq Channa, J. had ordered induction of genuine haris and such haris are now in cultivating possession. These haris will give the zamindari share to Air‑Marshal Asghar Khan directly or through applicant Muhammad Nawaz. Such persons who are in possession today have not been identified as the persons who committed trespass on 10‑7‑1972. The reports of Assistant Commissioner and Mukhtiarkar indicate that they are the genuine haris. Since these persons were not parties in this case it is not necessary to determine their claim to possession as haris and such functions will have to be performed by the Revenue Authorities. Order in regard to possession being given to Muhammad Nawaz to be framed in accordance with Form 22, Schedule V of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Orders accordingly.