Application for Partition of Land

PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 74 [Multan Bench, Multan] Present : Asjad Javaid Ghural , J. SHAJAR MUNIR--Petitioner versus DIRECTOR ANTI CORRUPTION etc.--Respondents W.P. No. 14012 of 2021, decided on 22.9.2021. Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Application for partition of land was allowed by Assistant Tehsildar--Pendency of appeal--Submission of application before Anti-Corruption Authorities--Inquiry was conducted--On basis of an ex-parte order or objection of want of jurisdiction, it cannot be automatically presumed that said order was passed by authority for some illegal gains--The matter is still subjudice before proper forums and until its final adjudication--This Court shown reluctance to interfere in inquiry proceedings but where from facts and circumstances of case, it came on surface that such inquiry is being conducted just to harass or compel a party to enter into some compromise, this Court cannot sit as a silent spectator--It would be highly unjustified to rope petitioner and revenue official in a criminal inquiry merely at whims of a party against whom some adverse order has been passed by said authority--Petition allowed. [Para 5] A & B Mr. Sajjad Hussain Khosa , Advocate for Petitioner. M/s. Muhammad Rafique Rajuana and Malik Zafar Mehboob Langrial , Advocates for Respondent No. 2. Mehr Imtiaz Hussain Mirali , A.A.G. with Zahid Mubarik, ADL/ACE, Ghulam Asghar Chandio, DDI/ACE and Syed Anwar Hussain Shah, Deputy Director Prosecution. Date of hearing: 22.9.2021. Order Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner prays as under:- “Under the view of the submissions, it is therefore, respectfully prayed that the writ petition in hand may very kindly be accepted and Respondent No. 1 be restrained to hold any inquiry till the final disposal of civil disputes pending adjudication in civil as well as revenue Courts in respect of matter, in the supreme interest of justice. Anyother relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is owner in possession of land measuring 05K-11M comprising in Khasra No. 24/16/1, 25/1, Khata No. 27 situated at Mouza Ghulla Wala, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh; that Respondent No. 2 was co-share in the same Khata; that the petitioner filed an application for partition of land which was allowed by Assistant Tehsildar vide order dated 19.10.2019, pursuant to which Mutation No. 1002 dated 06.07.2020 was also sanctioned in favour of the petitioner; that respondent tried to forcibly take possession of the land of the petitioner, which constrained him to file civil suit, in which the civil Court also granted interim injunction vide order dated 10.12.2020; that respondent has some terms with Additional Chief Secretary (South), as such in order to exert pressure upon the petitioner, she filed an application before Anti-Corruption Authorities, upon which Respondent No. 1 has initiated proceedings hastily; that against the partition proceedings, Respondent No. 2 has also filed appeal before the Addl. Commissioner (Revenue) Muzaffargarh, as such before the decision of said appeal, there was no justification for Respondent No. 1 to poke nose in civil dispute between the parties.

3. On the converse, learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner obtained ex-parte partition order by joining hands with the revenue hierarchy; that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if he has not committed any kind of offence.

4. Arguments heard. Record perused.

5. Respondent No. 2 in her application before Respondent No. 1 alleged that the petitioner by joining hand with Naib Tehsildar, Muzaffargarh obtained partition order ex-parte despite of the fact that said Tehsildar has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. If that was so Respondent No. 2 is at liberty to challenge the said order at Appellate Forum, which admittedly has been availed and her appeal is pending adjudication before the Addl. Commissioner (Revenue). Merely, on the basis of an ex-parte order or objection of want of jurisdiction, it cannot be automatically presumed that the said order was passed by the authority for some illegal gains. The matter is still subjudice before the proper forums and until its final adjudication, it would be pre-mature to assume that some wrong doing was committed by revenue official by joining hands with opposite side. Generally, this Court shown reluctance to interfere in the inquiry proceedings but where from the facts and circumstances of the case, it came on surface that such inquiry is being conducted just to harass or compel a party to enter into some compromise, this Court cannot sit as a silent spectator. It would be highly unjustified to rope the petitioner and revenue official in a criminal inquiry merely at the whims of a party against whom some adverse order has been passed by the said authority.

6. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is allowed and consequently Respondent No. 1 is restrained to proceed further on the application of Respondent No. 2 until the fate of decision of partition dated 19.10.2021 was finally determined by concerned forums. (Y.A.) Petition allowed