| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4777 = 2026 SLD 4777 = 2026 PLJ 54 |
Sindh High Court
C.P. No. D-1266 and CMA No. 5795 of 2020
Presented By: Abdul Mobeen Lakho and Muhammad Jaffer Raza, JJ.
Mr. Siraj Ahmed Mangi, Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. Nasima Mangrio, Advocate for
Respondent No. 2. Date of hearing: 12.2.2026.
C.P. No. D-1266 and CMA No. 5795 of 2020
Presented By: Abdul Mobeen Lakho and Muhammad Jaffer Raza, JJ.
Mr. Siraj Ahmed Mangi, Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. Nasima Mangrio, Advocate for
Respondent No. 2. Date of hearing: 12.2.2026.
USMAN GHANI--Petitioner
VERSUS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others--Respondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Allegation of encroachment--KPT land--Disputed question of facts--Recording of evidence--Fact finding forum--Plenary jurisdiction--Alternate remedy--Maintainability of writ petition-- Petitioner was beseeching and challenging dispute of a land of private Respondent No. 12 to 14 which requires factual inquiries as well as recording of evidence which exercise is not permissible under prescriptions of Article 199 of Constitution--It was not province of this Court under Article 199 to decide question of fact which required evidence--Where controversy involved intricate, disputed, or contentious questions of fact, resolution of which necessitates recording and appraisal of evidence by parties, such matters fall within domain of Courts of plenary jurisdiction, and High Court, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, could not assume role of a fact-finding forum or enter into such factual controversies--Petition dismissed. [P. 55] A & B Mr. Siraj Ahmed Mangi, Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. Nasima Mangrio, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. Date of hearing: 12.2.2026. Order This petition impugns an encroachment being carried by the Respondents No. 12 to 14 at the land owned by Respondent No. 2/KPT. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the private Respondents are developing Jetties on the government Land and such an act amount to encroachment on the part of Respondents No. 12 to 14 and official Respondents more particularly Respondent No. 2 is not taking any action, despite addressing several applications preferred by the Petitioner. 3. Learned…