1. ' MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, J.--- The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents Nos.2 to 6 (police officials) are trying to disturb and interfere with their peaceful possession over the lands bearing Survey Nos.537(03-39), 538 (03-39), 539 (03-31), 504 (04-04), 541 (03-39), 542 (03-39), 543 (03-39), 549 (03-39), 550 (03-39), 551 (03-39), 552 (03-39), 553 (02-30), 556 (03-39), 557 (03-39), 558 (03-39), 559 (03-39), and 560 (03-39) and that they are further trying to establish a Police Picket over the above land and that for getting land in dispute vacated from the petitioner they are pressurizing the petitioner's father to hand over the vacant possession to the respondents Nos.7 to 10 and thus, are not acting in accordance with the law. The petitioner has further stated that a Civil Revision No,86 of 1991 in respect of disputed land is pending before this Court. The petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents Nos.2 to 6, not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land described above, otherwise than in due course of law.
2. ' The learned Additional Advocate-General has filed statement on behalf of the respondents Nos.2 to 6 and has stated that neither the respondents Nos.2 to 6 have disturbed the possession of the petitioner over the land in question nor they intend to do so. It is further stated that the respondents Nos.2 to 6 have no intention to construct any police picket on the land in possession of the petitioner.
3. ' Mr. Jamshaid Ahmed Faiz, learned Advocate for respondents Nos.7 to 10 has filed objections and has stated that the respondents Nos.7 to 10 are the co-sharers of the land along with the petitioner and the revision arising out of the civil suit filed by the petitioner is pending in this Court. He has further stated that the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Is pending before the Civil Judge and F.C.M. Ubauro.
4. ' A perusal of the documents produced by the learned A.A.-G. Shows that the Mukhtiarkar (Land Revenue) Ubauro has given a direction to the S.H.O. Police Station Ubauro for initiating the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Posing himself as F.C.M. The learned Additional Advocate- General has frankly conceded that the Mukhtiarkar (Land Revenue), Ubauro has described himself as F.C.M., Ubauro which is factually incorrect Mukhtiarkar is not a First Class Magistrate and he has no authority to give direction for initiating proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Or to pass any order in this behalf, which jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Civil Judge and F. C . M . , Ubauro.
5. ' In view of the concession made by the learned A.A.-G. That the order passed by the Mukhtiarkar is illegal and without jurisdiction, the direction given by the Mukhtiarkar for initiation of proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Is hereby quashed. It is unfortunate that District Police Officer, Ghotki has issued a direction to S.I.P., Asif Ali, S.H.O. Of Police Station Ubauro in pursuance of an illegal order made by Mukhtiarkar, Ubauro. The direction issued by the D.P.O. Ghotki is also hereby quashed being without jurisdiction, as conceded by the learned Additional Advocate-General.
6. ' It is by now established proposition of law that the functionaries of the State can exercise that jurisdiction only which is vested in them under the law and any exercise of jurisdiction otherwise that in due course of law amounts to gross illegality and excess of jurisdiction. Stern warning is therefore, administered to Mr. S. Tashkeel Haider Shah, District Police Officer, Ghotki and Mukhtiarkar (Land Revenue), Ubauro to be careful in future and not to resort to the excess of jurisdiction. Being responsible officers they should not demonstrate from their action that they believe, that power is the misuse of power. They should believe in and act upon the principle that the power lies in the obedience to the mandate of law and in the adherence to the rule of law. If responsible Government officials start flouting the mandate of rule, then, there would be no concept of rule of law in a Society and a Society bereft of rule of law cannot be termed as a civilized society. The warning administered to the two officials named above should be communicated to them and be sent to the Chief Secretary and I.-G. Police, Sindh with the direction to place the same in the A.C.Rs, dossiers of these two officials.
7. ' The petition is disposed of along with the listed application in the terms that the respondents Nos.2 to 6 shall not take any action to disturb the admitted peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land described in earlier part of this judgment and the respondents Nos.7 to 10 who claim to be the co-sharers in the land shall be at liberty to pursue the remedy in accordance with the law before all the forums provided in law.