' MUHAMMAD SADIQ LEGHARI, J.--- On 28-4-2001 Fakir Ali Bux filed Constitution Petition No,S-432 of 2001 stating therein substantially that in respect of dispute in respect of land civil litigation is going on between him and respondent No,4 Choudhary Ghulam Rasool. Further that the Mukhtiarkar Rohri and S.H.O. Salehpat were harassing and threatening him of changing Khata. He also alleged that S.H.O. Police Station Salehpat has threatened him of initiating the proceedings under section 107, Cr.P.C.
2. In response to the notice issued by this Court the S.H.O. Concerned appeared and filed statement that he neither has nor will cause any harassment to the petitioner in respect of the disputed land.
The learned A.A.-G. Also submitted that respondent No,2 Mukhtiarkar will not take any action against the petitioner contrary to law and if any action is taken that would be strictly in accordance with law, in the result of those statements the petition was disposed of as not pressed.
Afterwards the petitioner filed present application under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan read with sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging therein that Mukhtiarkar had committed contempt of Court by resorting to harass the petitioner by effecting mutation in the record of rights in respect of land in the suit pending between the parties specially 1st Class Suit No,94 of 2001. While arguing the application, the learned Advocate representing the petitioner stated that despite statement given by the S.H.O. And learned A.A.-G. Mukhtiarkar effected the mutation in respondent of Survey No,408(1.00 acres). He referred to Annexure "A" to the application.
He also contended that this was done despite the application by the petitioner that no such mutation should be effected.
3. The learned A.A.-G. And the learned Advocate representing Mukhtiarkar respondent No,2 have stated that the mutation was effected on the basis of registered sale-deed which the Mukhtiarkar was required to do under the law and as such it was not the violation of the statement that he would not do any act in contravention of law.
4. I have perused the true copy of the entry which indicates that mutation was effected on the basis of registered sale-deed. Nowhere it is alleged that there was any restriction from the Court operating against such mutation. In absence of such restriction the B act performed by the Mukhtiarkar was not in violation of the statement given by the learned A.A.-G. Before the Court. The application is misconceived and is dismissed along with listed applications.