RASOOL BUX S/O AHMED (LATE) (Applicant) VS THE DIRECTOR (LAND) K.M.C & ORS (Respondent)

/6Lt

Dopuly Rcgi!t r (Judr.)

IN THE HONBLE HTGH COTIRT OF U

sr rpEr A1'TG,RACHT Z77o

CR. REVISION APPL, NO. , OF 2020

ITASOOI, BIIX

S/o AHMED (LATE) Muslim,'Adult, Resident of Yousuf Goth, Hub River Road. Karachi APPLICANT

yE R Si.=;

1.TIIE DIREICTOR (LAND) Ifl,IC, having office at KMC Head Of{ice Building, M'A.Jinnah Road, j Karachi.

2. THE DPFUTY DIR.ECTOR' KMC (I.AND)

having offlce at KMC Head Office Building, M.A.Jinnah Road, I{arachi.

3. THI' ASSTSTANT DTRECTOT,!. (LEASESI

KMC Lyari Town, Having office atLeaMarket, Karachi.

4. THE SUB REGISTRAR'

- Lyari Town, Karachi.

' s. Msr. R.aEIA W/o Dost' MUHAMIVIAD

6.GHULAM I,VTUSTAFA S/o DOST MUHAMMAD'

7.GHULAM MURTAZA S/o DOST MUHAMMAD'

8.GI:*ULANI AL'[ S/o DOST MU*-I.AMMAD

L OU

9.NASEER AHMED S/o DoST ilILHAMIVIAD' Respondent No.S to 9 Muslims, Aduits, Residents of House No.799, Photo Lane, v) Chakiwara, LYari, Karachi.

J lv3 q

10. TIIE COURT OF SPPCIAL WDGE,

Anti- Corruption, (Provincial) at Karachi RESPONDENT*S

1'il'16,_-s-bi-;

:::i-

INTHEHIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI

Cr. Rev. Application No.179 of 2020 fRasool Bux vs. Directo:' (Land) KI\'IC & Others] For Applicant: NIr. Muhammad Arif Khan, advocate along with applicant.

For I(.\'1.C.: IVIr. Shaukat Ali Shaikh, advocate a/w Sahabul Islam, Director Land KNIC and Nlasllkoor K1lan, Assistant Director, Land Lvari Torvn, Karachi

For Respgndents N{r. Asfandvar Jahangir, advocate. Nos.5 to 9:

Fol State: N{uhamr.nad Raza. DPG Sindh.

Date of hearing: 11.03.20?5 a

C;

Date of judgment: i 1.03.2015 lj.l

T UDGMENT o ,V)

]an Ali lunejo, fr- This Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the Applicant, Rasool Bux. under Section 439 reacl with Section 435 of the Code of Crimtral Procedure, 1898' challenging the impugned order dated 24'08'2020 passetl by the Learned Special Juclge .\nti-Corruptiou (Provincial)' Karachi (Respondent No. 10), rvherebv the direct complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in Special Case No 07 of 2020 was dismissed. The complaint alieged offences under Sections 409' 420,467,468,471,,477-A, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption '. Act,1947.

L 2. The Applicant, a legal heir of the late Ahmed Brohj' ciaimsthattireleaselroldr.igirtsofPlotNo'798/799(702) were granted to situated at Chakiwara, Lvari Quarters, Karaclri, Applicant his father in1978. After tl-re death of his father' the

t

ILL

REV.APP. NO.179 Or', 202 2

and other legal heirs sought to distribute the property according to Sharia law. However, Respondent No. 5 (Mst. -. Rabia) and her sons (Respondents Nos. 6 to 9) allegedly refused to release the inherited ProPefty and claimed independent ownership. Tl-re Applicant further a[leges that Respondents Nos. L to 3 (govemment officials) illegally issued a fresh lease in favor of Respondent No. 5, despite the existing lease in favor of the deceased Ahmed Brohi. Additionally, a gift deed was executed in favor of Respondents Nos. 6 to 9, whicl-r the Applicant ciaims was done fraudulently and in coliusion with the Sub-Registrar (Respondent No.4).

3.Tlte Learned Counsel for the {PPlicant argued that the Special'Court failed to follow the proper procedure under Section 200 Cr.P.C. by not calling for 4r'r inquiry report from the Anti-Corruption Establishment or the Investigation Officer' It ; was contended that the Special Court disn-Lissed the complaint without applying judicial miuc-l and failed to consider that the Applicant had approached the court after being denied remedy by the concerned authorities. The Counsel argued that the {:) lJ Special Court erred in relying on previous judgments of the .F o{1 Itr apex court, which were not applicable to the facts of the present rt- case. It was further argued that the actious of the Respondents, lr:S including the issuance of a Iresh lease and the execution of a gilt deed, were fraudulent and violated the rights of the Applicant and other legal heirs. The Counsel empl-rasized that the Special Court failed to consider the provisions of Article 10- A of the Constitution of Pakistan, which guarantees the right to a fair trial.

4.The Learned APG Sindh and Counsel for Respondents argued that the Applicant failed to follow the proper procedure by not submitting a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Establishment before approaching the Court. It was contended

tL+

R[V .APP. NO.1 ?9 OF 202 3

that the disPute is essentially of a civii nature, involving property'rights, and does not fail within the Purview of

crirtrinal law or the Anti-Corruption Establishment' The Respondents argued tl'rat the execution of tire gift deed wele of done in accordance with the larv, and there was no evidence

I

fraud or collusion. The Leamecl Counsel for KMC argued that the Applicant had alternative reniedies available' including the

pending civil suit (Suit No' 1342 of 2019), and therefore' the criminal complaint was not maintainable'. He argued that

respondents No.1 to 3 are sued through designation' It is not in the policy of Iaw to sue any person through designation criminal proceedings therelore this revisior"r is not maintainable' Lastly, the Ieamed APG and Iearned counsel for Respondents

prayed for dismissal of ti-re Criminal Revision Application'

5.This Court has carefully considered the arguments the material advance{ by both sides, the impugned order' and on record. The learned Special Court observed that the complainant did not adhere to the proper procedure as

Rules' 1993' outlined in the Sindh Enquiries & Anti-Corruption Specifically, the complainant approached the court directly-.

without 'first filing a complaint with the Anti-Corruption from the

I Establishment and obtaining the necessary approval t' Court comPetent authority to initiate an inquiry' The Special t-. that the complainant could only approach the court stressecl to take directly if the Anti-Corruption Establishment had failed this action on his complaint. Since the complainant bypassed mandatory procedural step, the court ruled that the direct that the complaint was not maintainable' It is an admitted fact matter' dispute primarily revolves around a private ProPerty ' specifically concerning tl're leasehold rights of Plot No'798/799

(102)iocated in Chakiwara Lyali Quarters' I(arachi' The

compl3inant alleged that the responclents' which include botl-L

tLb

CR.REV.APP . NO.179 oF 202 4

a issue government officials and private individuals, conspired to a fraudulent lease in favor of Mst' Rabia (Respondent No' Nos' 6 to 9'

5)and executed a gift deed in favor of Respondents is The court reiterated that tl, e Anti-Cormption Establishment not authorized to handle complaints related to private ProPerty disputes. Furthermore, the Applicant himseif admitted in Paragraph No' 12 of the present Revision Application the Court that Suit No. 1342 of 2019 is currently pending before As such' of the leamed Illrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-South' through fraud-- the issue of whether the gift deed was obtained dishonesty by Respondents Nos'1 to 5 must be determined or by the Civil Court in its ultimate jurisdiction' In a similar ofRasool context, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case

(PLD 2A04

Khan and others tt. Haii Banaras l(han and others in this SC Si[observed that: "The n'root point to be considered case is uery alienation of property by Mst' Habib Jee in fauour of the regarding uhich tlu respondents through aboaementioned mt'ttations had held a detailed Reaenue as utell as Anti-Corruption Authoities CO U tle potoers of the concenred Court to f ,} .inqr.dry. Tlrcre is no bnr on o and acquit an UJ exercise its iuisdiction wtder section 249-A' Cr'P'C' T of clmrge' after ffirding an r accused.at any stage euer, before ftaming it is found opportu.ni of heaing to tie prosecutor and tlrc accused' if vfs + of accused ttmt the clutge is groundless or there is no probability being conoicted and tlut further proceedings in the matter urould be a

of process of Court' In the instant futile exercise and result in aht'tse has exercised case also, hial Court tolile ncqritting the respondents its jurisdiction exactly itt accordance tttith lazu which is rightly note tlmt tlrc maintained by tle Higlt Court. It toould be pertinent to cit'il respondents luae also resorted to tlrc ciitil renredy and'haue fled the year 7998 uhich is pending adiudication' hence there utns suit in no justification to.inttoke the iurisdiction of the ciminal Court as tlte

aery fact tlut the mutation ruas fraudulently entered or not is yet to

be determinecl by the Cittil Cottrt" ' It is also a matter of record that

tLq

q

R.REV.APP. NO.1 79 OF 202

the Applicant seeks the cancellation of the lease for Plot No. 799, Chawkiwata, Lyxi Quarters, Karachi, which was issued in favor of Mst. Rabia D/o Ahmed (Respondent No' 5). Additionally, the Applicant is challenging the declaration of an oral gift conceming the said proPerty. However, such matters fall beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this Court, whether under Section 561-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ' (CI.P.C.) or the constitutional jurisdiction provided under Article 199 of. the Cor-rstitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.hthis context, the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case of Atttit lamal and Others a. Malik Zahoor-ttl-Haq and Othets (2011 SCMR 1023), specifically ! articulated its stance in Patagraph No.7, stating as follows: "7' We haue lreo)d ilrc lenrned counsel and h nzte also perused the record. ln exercise of torit jurisdiction, question of title of a p.roperty cannot be gone into by the High Court. The scope of Article 199 is dependent on the questiotxs Tllxich are dettoid of factual controaersy. A registered instrument can only he cancelled bu n ciztil court o f ccmpetent iuri s:lt ction on tlrc q'' 'nd of fraud ':

otlurwise. Section 39 of the S ecific Relief Act proaides tlut n uo hich seeks cancellntion of a re?is tered instrutnent has to qJ -{1 file a cittil suit bV spproncltin .s the cioiL court of cotlxpetent t- sdiction and utrit jtLrisdictiott in suclr matters is barred" .

o V :!i

6.In the case of Imran-ul-Haq a. Tlrc State (2019 YLR Note t 80), this Court reaffirmed that it is now a settled principle of law that the Anti-Corruption Poiice is neither empowered nor authorized to investigate disputes involving private lands. Furthermore, the Prevention of Comrption Act, 1947 does not permit , tl're Anti-Corruption Police to entertain complaints

A

related to title disputes between private parties. For additional support, reference can be made to the cases of Dilbar Hussain o. Habib ur Rehman and another (2077 PCT.LI Note

l+o

R.fi[v.APP. NO.1?g Of', 2O2 6

278), Mohammad Moosa a. State t2005 CLC 487), and KhadinL Htrssain a. The State (2017 PCr,Ll 7006).lt is a well-established legal principle that the jurisdiction of the Special Court Anti- Corruption is confined to cases involving corruption by pubtic servants in matters related to government property or public interest. Disputes concerning private property must be adjudicated by the Civii Courts, which have the ultimate jurisdiction in such matters.

7.The impugned order dated 24.08.2020 is both legally sound and well-reasoned. The iearned Special Court correctlv concluded that the compiaint was not maintainable due to procedural defects and a lack of jurisdiction. The complairlant's grievances regarding the allegedfraudulent oH C o lease and gift deed sl,ould be comprehensively and .4. * o F exhaustively addressed in the civil suit already fited by him.

o The impugned order is consistent with established legal vlsr principlesandprecedents, and there is no erlor in theSpecial Court's findings or reasoning.

8.In view of 'the above, this Court fiads no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 24.08.2020 passed by the Learned Special Judge Anti- Corruption (Provincial), Karachi. The Criminal Revision Application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The prayer to convert this Criminal Revision Application into a Constitution Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistaru 7973, is also rejectecl, as the Applicant has adequate remedies available in the pending civil suit.

iUDGE