Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 2953 2013 SLD 2953 2013 PLD 183
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revision Application No. S-100 of 2012, decided on 28th November, 2012.
SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, J
Abdul Sattar Sarki for Applicant. Jagdesh R. Mullani for
Respondents. Syed Meeral Shah, D.P.G. for the State.

DHANI BUX--Applicant

VS

VIADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD and 2 others

Law:

Section:

Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005)-----Ss. 3 & 5---Complaint filed by landlord under Ss. 3 & 5 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 alleging therein that he was owner of agricultural land and accused persons had dispossessed him and occupied the same without lawful justification---Sale price of produce of land was deposited in court by the accused persons (harees)---Application for release of such amount by accused persons---Scope---'Harees' filed an application before Trial Court to release disputed amount of produce of land deposited with the accountant of the court---Trial Court dismissed said application by observing that 'harees' and landlord were entitled to the extent of their respective shares in the produce, therefore, entire amount could not be released to either parties, as the matter was of redemption of account and civil court was competent to resolve such a controversy---Legality---Trial Court had not committed any illegality in dismissing application of 'harees' (accused persons)---Constitutional petition regarding the present issue was also pending adjudication before the High Court---Revision application was dismissed and impugned order of Trial Court was maintained. ORDER SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, J.---Heard the learned counsel and perused the record. 2. Opponent/accused being farmers (Harees) filed an application to release the disputed amount of the produce of the land deposited with the accountant of the court. In impugned order dated 11-7-2012 the learned Trial Court observed that applicants being 'harees' and the complainant being landlord are entitled to the extent of their respective share in the produce, therefore, entire amount cannot be released either to complainant or to the accused persons, as the matter is of Redemption of account and the civil court is competent to resolve and settle such controversy. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order the captioned criminal revision application has been preferred by the applicant. 3. Relevant succinct facts leading to the filing of this case are that respondent No.2 filed a complaint under sections 3 and 5 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, alleging therein that…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492