1. ' Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. ' Petitioner Ferozuddin Riaz to be owner and in possession of the agricultural land admeasuring 30 acres, situated in Deh Gharo, unsurveyed Tapo Gharo, Taluka Mirpur Sakro, District Thatta, having purchased the same from one Muhammad Saleem son of Ayoub through a registered sale-deed, dated 7-1-2004. It is the case of the petitioner himself that he then approached the Director, Survey and Settlement Department, Board of Revenue, Government of Sindh, Hyderabad, with a request that the demarcation of the site may be had and to point out the land, which he claims to be under his ownership. His application to that effect was forwarded by respondent No,4 to Deputy District Officer (Rev.), Mirpur Sakro at Gharo, the respondent No,2, for legal action and further That "all legal requirements having been completed and lease money having been paid by the petitioner", Khata was mutated in his favour in Village Form-VII by the Revenue Mukhtiarkar concerned.
3. ' Petitioner alleges that on the instigation of "high officials" the S.D.P.O. Of Gharo Sub-Division and S.H.O. Dhabeji with their respective subordinate staff and others wanted to forcibly dispossess the petitioner from the said land and also issued such threats to him. Hence, the petitioner made the following prayers in this petition.
4. "(a) To direct the respondents especially the respondent Nos.7 and 8 along with their subordinate and Demolition Escort not to demolish, remove the petitioner's servants, guards and supervisor or occupy the legally acquired land of the petitioner and not to interfere into the proprietary rights of the petitioner on the land purchased by him from the previous owner.
(b) To restrain the respondents along with sub-ordinates from alienating, transferring or disposing' the land of the petitioner or portion thereof in any manner whatsoever to any person or person(s) and/or to create third party interest on the above and of the petitioner.
(c) To restrain the respondents their subordinate and staff or any person acting on their behalf from causing damage to the land of the petitioner through Demolition Escort illegally and from causing harassm ent and/or advancing threats to the petitioner to give up his rights as guaranteed under the Constitution, 1973 from the land legally acquired by the petitioner.
(d) To direct the respondents especially the respondent Nos.7 and 8 from interfering in the peaceful and uninterrupted possession enjoyed by the petitioner in respect of the said land.
(e) To grant any other relief or relief(s) as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case in the interests of justice.
(f) To grant cost of the petition."
5. ' An application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. Has been filed by Intervenor, Aijaz Hussain, praying therein that he may be impleaded as a respondent in the petition by asserting that one Choudhry Tahir Hussain son of Choudhry Ghulam Ali executed a document of General Power of Attorney in favour of Aijaz Hussain regarding the land in dispute and that the petitioner has forged out some documents to put in a false claim of being owner of the very same land.
6. ' The official respondents have also taken a stand that from perusal of the official record it comes out that forgeries were committed in the relevant official record, whereby one person went on selling the Government land to the other illegally without their being any right, title or interest in their respective favour.
7. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has mostly placed reliance on a copy of the registered sale- deed to argue that the petitioner having purchased the land in dispute from its previous owner, is entitled to remain in possession of the same and that the respondents are legally duty bound to provide legal cover to his said possession.
8. ' From the bare perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the respondents have disputed the claim of ownership of the petitioner over the said land and it is a settled principle of law that wherever disputed facts are involved in a case, Constitutional petition under Article 199 cannot be entertained as the inquiry is not permitted to be carried out to resolve such disputed questions of facts.
9. ' The petition is hereby dismissed in limine along with the listed applications, leaving the petitioner at liberty to approach the competent Court of the civil jurisdiction to get his rights adjudicated upon. Needless to state that so far entries in the relevant record of rights of the land are concerned, he shall always be at liberty to avail the remedies of appeal/revision, as provided under the Land Revenue Act, itself.