GFRICE! OF. THE MUKHTIARKA No, STM Z S| Mex Jae Bf aban oe (Algoe? * €3U5)3 lh 2 Tt tes Tass aay A ote aerall ae tb 2 wehomte — ; a PL Bt bh ao tase \oa yalso been placed there in recent time inside said Katchi boundary wall of graveyard. c. In this regard, report was called from Mukhtiarkar (Revenue) Taluka Lakhi to ascertain the position of graveyard, who vide his letter No.SM/615, dated 03-09- 2020 has reported that during his field visit, plaintiff produced Certified eupics of the map of site and form-II entry of the Mukhtiarkar Gothabad Shikarpur. Which shows that entry No, 05 in the name of graveyard and the Miutawali of the Graveyard is Abdul Waheed s/o Hamza Khan Abro (plaintiff), such report No.SM/HO/B-22, dated 28.08.2020, of Mukht also produced by the plain rkar Gothabad Shikarpur whereas defendant De, Amanullah could not produce any document in his favour, Further Mukhtiarkar Lakhi has reported that document produced by the plaintiff dees not pertain to the Office of Mukhtiarkar (Revenue) Lakhi, it pertains to the Office of Mukhtiarkar Gothabad karpur. iarkar Lakhi has added im his report that during his field visit, il was observed that the defendant has placed a gate and constructed boundary wall around some postion wf the graveyard which is L illegal aet, Sindln vefact a. Conclusively, {he matter between parties over possession of graveyard is of civil nature which falls under the jurisdiction of Honourable Civil Court,” {tis also further submitted that defendant No.8 and others are residing, in village since their forefathers and there are mote than 150 houses situated in village Nao-Goth but plaintiff through different means on the basis of managed Deh Form-ll was creating continuous illegal harassment to defendant No and others, the defendant No8 being well educated and Doctor by profession made attempt to approach the Mukhtiarkar Sindh Abad Goth Scheme in order to verify the alleged false Deh Form-II and a false map but the office of the Mukhtiarkar4 opin Catése? ¢ Sub mes aot] aed]. Samaullah, Commarnd By ih 7 ORDER WwW COURT OF aE TOUS Juber SUWIKARPUR. Gr M.A. 2945/2009 Abdul Urhee ree Applicant. v/s . een en appondentes Amanullah rid ot 3 card the applicant Abdul Wahid and the respondents Amranullah and Sanaullah, Whe grievance of ih applicant is that a vacant plot lying in front of his house, is in his possession sine: long, but the respondents were attempting to occupy it and Lhreatcning the applivant to face dire consequences if he effered in, tesistance, | oo j , The respondents claimed that disputed plot belonged’ to respondent Boat the produced anv proof reg; arties clai ed their possession on the plot but none ‘of thom The matter appears to be Approach competent court. Bot! their hands a he parlies are directed not iS Tike the law into: id adopt legal recourse. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Covied 7, iff lied By! hinp licant A -. Bash eee Tu3oe oe manwllah N.31.08.2000 Stamp pridjon.31.9 Copy rade 22920 : : env on. 91.09.2099a Ra fi: wh Me iD 6p sus dy) 08 om 8 SUS aA ad oo ge shee gS Sistah aBis bol BS boos OT ad © GhSe M43 La : pgdlisinia wf pass) gran oss b Sisions ote WD due Gua’ des a We webb (eas 98 Gide gusts S ein SO BUS ohn tS. Goo PN OD gash cosh Gly Gs) sys qh iss AE ohelye oy 53 ab Sere Ge sls of ee ely We p7d- Qe HE y go gle go f poke Caine Lad soto GOES ue 2 SN9 af cae | oik+ Gildan loads dike 3 Re uke 23 ToD ALG S oie Sh. (suarss Hose gm bh — nptreetistice Us of gaudy) oA gauss 1A lly Sous JF) Lavag pik cru 4a Lhe te. wh os fie rasa 8 be USD Se Tos qQpi as C8295 PEMA hain i Che. bs WS ole‘, olds ble Gis BAS ge ig, PEt oN tp JG Sats Pvt rad xe is OCab a gid nts ol atr, g, Jif esspissp D9 Jipr. 1g Vag g ‘ev BEFORE TENCROA’ ENT. UNAL Encroachment suitNo, of 2020 Bashir Ahmed Abro wore Plaintiff VERSUS Deputy Commissioner, Shikarpur & others set etneienemenDefendants PARA WISE COMMENTS/ OBJECTIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.8. The defendant No.8 respectfully submits his para wise comments /objections as under'- 1. That, the contents of Para No. 1 of the suit are partly admitted and parlly denied. It is admilted that there is ancient graveyard situated in Village Nao-Goth Deh Shah Qulli Pur Taluka Lakhi Ghulam Shah District Shikarpur. It is denied that the area measuring 59200 sq:ft. It is also denied that (he entry in Form-II of concerned Deh is maintained in office of the Mukhtiarkar Sindh Gothabad Scheme District Shikarpur. It is further submitted that the Deh Formll Produced by plaintiff with this suit pertains to the year 1991 and in which the preset plaintiff has shown his brather Abdul Waheed as Mutawali of Graveyard, the same document on face of it seems to be forged, managed, after thought and has been prepared by some officials in collusion with plaintiff and his brother as it is above the imagination that how a private person can be Mutawali of the Graveyard as plaintiff has not produced any document in support of his contention that his brother is Mutawali. Itis further submitted that prior to this brother of present plaintiff namely Abdul Waheed in the year 2009 moved'an application to the court of Honourable District and Sessions Judge/ Justice of Peace Shikarpur against the answering defendant whereir. he stated that there is an open plot answering defendants and others were trying to dispossess him from that plot4a: ecu eon Ne eee 7 - a! Ia. . 2 oe el Rosie PAG opin 2h ces) 1 2 + . ome) alll Shows ~ 1 epi ,,)| Sse 8 ES eS Se eS ${SetSaas eee] 18 r q t Soon hie %; (MLE Soy 2 eas nd | oy s | He freee . || reeer Fp seo 2urdlyel| Me © £ Se Goud Ly ey Te | ‘ Uyaen ele es upebore is «6 we The we , eases 6 A PBs h OT Heat low 7 Le pole} 1 h e CASES] Cfo re) ~ = 1S ral) te wd 1B Lary | | -(Page No.3) In this regard, repo i ascertain the pusitia (Revenue) Taluka Lakhi to 9-20.20 has rey etter No. SM/615, Dated: (7 althengog 2 applicant produce Certifiqd copivs Shae hae anon etryat ne ee anand ae heh Groveyacd lentil Wakser a ame of graveyarl and the Mutawall of the SM/HO/B-12, Dated He 7 Hamza Khan Abro (Applicant), such Mport No. VB-12, Dal -O8-2020, of Mukhtiarkar Gothabad Shikarpur also produced by the applicant, whereas respondent Dr. Amanullah coutd not produce document in his favour, Further Mukhtiarkar Lakhi has reported that document produced by the applicant does nol pertain ta the Office of Mukhtlarkar (Revenue) Lach, it pertains to the Office ef Mukhtiarkar Gothabad Shikarpur, Moreover, Mukhtiarkar taki has added in his report that during his fletd "visit, it was observed thal there is a graveyard of area measuring 59200sq ft and further observed that the responclent has placed @ gate and constructed boundary wall around some portion of the graveyerd which is illegal act any Conclusively, the matter betwenn parties over possession of graveyard is af civil nature which falls under the jurisdiction of Honourable Civil Court This ig submilted for favour of kind pecusal and further ofders, Com hanwtl ~flaved Ahmed Soomro} § DsP/SOPQ Tajodera, Look after Charge of SDOP Jhali Kalwari hae| esl Se SIL pete ¥ Dee | o 3 2A sloaaranskits| 4s | z Pb pk ayo ue! H “ l een Ja 6(EP and that application was disposed off by the court of Honourable Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace Shikarpur on 22.01.2010 with the observations that the matter appears to be of Civil Nature and parties are required to approach competent court and both the parties were directed not to take the law into their hands. It is further submitted that if plaintiff was in possession of alleged managed Doh Form-Il in his favour the question arises thay as to why he did not produce before the court of Honourable Sessions Judge Shikarpur which clearly shows thal plaintiff by foul means in collusion with the some lower staff got menaged such false decument and same has no value in the eyes of Jaw: It is also further submitted that the brother of present plaintiff namely Abdul Wa wud moved false application before SSP Shikarpur and SSP Shikarpur directed DSP/SLMO Vajuderu, look after charge af SDPO Jhalli Kalwari the same officer visited the site, conducted inquiry, 6 oridus| the slatemonts of iihubitants ef the vicinity and he given his findings, the same produce rein under a. “Plaintiff party is claiming that alleged Dr, Amanullah Abro has illegally oecupied upon graveyard of Syed Community, wherein 2 plot of plaintiff party has been merged, but persons of Syed Community have witnessed during enquiry that the said graveyard pertains to them (Syed Community) for burial purpose of dead bodies of Syed Community Only, to which plaintiff party are any other community is not belongis They further disclosed that the boundary wall of graveyard yot constructed by Dr. Amanullah with their ecnmsultation only to keep safety of the graveyard. However they have no any objection over it and they are satisfied with alleged Doctor. b. During spot enquiry of the undersigned, no any grave was found bulldozed in the said graveyard. There is old boundary wall with Katchi Bricks surrounding the Braveyard while some of the distance of boundary wall has been constructed with Paki bricks and a gate hasGP Sindh Gothabad Scheme Shikarpur is lying vacant and an officer of assistant rank was available but he refused to verify the authenticity of Deh Form-Il and false Map got prepared by plaintiff in predate , therefore, defendant No& being vigilant to law approached to defendant No.1 with written application for obtaining the certified tue copies of fake Map as well Deh Form-t, the defendant No.1 vide his letter dated 09.09.2020 directed defendant No.3 to visit the site personally and furnish comprehensive report with regard ownership and possession status of land under dispute in the light of revenue record as well as Deh Map, the defendant No.3 vide his letter dated 25.09.2020 submitted his report to defendant No.1 through defendant NO.2and in the conclusion para graph the defendant No.3 stated in his report the same is reproduced herein under~ “In this regard it is suggested that before deciding the matter on genuineness of record and allotment may kindly be verified from Mukhtiarkar Gothabad Office who's office may very well know about the allotment of the area”. It is further submitted thot when plaintiff party came to know that defendant No.1 is guing to verify the authenticity of his false document ie. false Map prepared in the year 1991 and false Deh Formell the same was also managed in the year 1991 he in order to save himself from the consequences has filed above suit pn the basis of frivilous grounds and managed documents, It is also further submitted that the malafide and ulterior motive is evident on the part of plaintiff party as the Map allegedly got prepared by plaintiff party in collusion with some officials is in contradiction with the ground realities as there is something else available on the ground and the same has not been shown in the Map moreover even the plain reading of the Map that is full of over writing and manipulations whieh smells that the same Map has been prepared recently in order to dispossess defendant No.8 from his property where he is residing since his forefathers, It is also further submitted that the defendant NO.1 has yet not decided the application. filed by defendant NO and same is sub-judice. It is further submitted that this Tsibunal is also competent to verify about the authenticity ofPSO US UE 19 Buns Ls Pe eal>* , MukamiGrave Yard, which is shown it Red What measuring about|59200 Sq It: and a Pacea Boundary, | an is newly constructed by Mr. Amarulkan few. months, 299 Sn piece of fand in Purple Colour in the sketch from Mukam area. steer | There is One Musafir Khana just adjacent rae under dispute alfeady constructed of an ares of 304 Sq Feet * Meek shown in I ates colour =in~=Ssthe:~—s said Sk MrAmanuliah erected a Iron Gate at the paint K and inside the gale ; Passess the area having trees of Raid Mushk and Clinic is also shown in Green Colour|in the altached skelch. On the eastern a piece of land area shown in/the Dasti Soral Hall is shown in light blue colour possessed by Gpmaruddin using it as Olag . itis further submited that the dispute ts over ihe area reserved for Mukain by the Mukhtiarkar Goth Abad and issued the Sketch, the opponent Mr Amanultah denied (dis-salished with the sketch and is] making application lor measurement of grave Yard (Mukam and! he jaded to produce any documentary evidence in support of version Ong Bashir Anined on the site appeared and stated thal the cd Katcha Bridks wall of Grave Yate was constcted by the villagers, on their own expenses and futher na had produced the Sanad, Photo Stal copies of éntries of form || made in the i Abad Office are also submitted he Ih tn} anis fegatis Wis sugges! office of Mukhtiarkar Gath ted thal betore matter on génhineness of record and alloiment may kind from Mukhtiatkar Goth Abad about the allotment of the aea Basti Sorat hall and jepert of the te: measurement and photo stat copies of Sanads are submitted herewith for further necessary on MUKHTIARKAR eben LAKHI No: AC (6m / 550 Dated : Ab 04-In2, Submits) ito the D deciding the ly be verified Ollice vihose olfice nay very well know am cOnstitiied for Produced by the Parties ders E) fest Comat sions,