Rajo Khoso (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh & Others (Respondent)

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT HYDERABAD

Constitution Petition No. S-199 of 2020

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

01.For orders on M.A.No.508/2020

02.For orders on office objection

03.For orders on M.A.No.509/2020

04.For hearing of main case.

Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Baloch, Advocate for the petitioner.

The petitioner by way of instant constitutional petition has prayed for the following relief;

(a)To direct the respondent No. 3 & 4 to conduct the departmental inquiry against the respondent No.6 and further direct to appoint an honest officer for the clear and partial inquiry of the case.

(b)Declare the acts of respondents No. 7 to 21 illegal, unlawful, void ab-initio, unjustified, malafide, politically motivated, against law and guarantees provided in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

(c)To restrain and prohibit the respondent No.7 & 21 from interfering over the peaceful possession of the petitioner in the agricultural land.

(d)Any other relief(s) which this Honourable Court deems fit, just and proper in favour of the petitioner.

(e)Costs of the petition be saddled upon the respondents.

As per petitioner the land (as is detailed in the petition) belonging to the Bheel community has been leased out to him for six years under valid `Iqrarnama` which has annoyed the private respondents and now they are intending to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has

filed the instant constitutional petition before this Court with the prayer as is detailed above.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the highhandedness of the private respondents could only be checked upon by this Court by ordering inquiry.

I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

Obviously there is dispute between the parties over lease of the land and possession whereof, such dispute being factual in its nature could not be resolved by this Court summarily, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the instant constitutional petition being misconceived is dismissed in limine together with listed applications.

JUDGE