' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J. Constitutional petition No, D-1820 of 2011, filed by the present petitioners before the High Court of Sindh was disposed of, vide order dated 17.1.2012, operative part whereof, contained in its penultimate paragraph reads as under:--- "15. In view of what has been stated above we conclude that the impugned order was without jurisdiction and it is therefore hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the EDO concerned for implementation of the Earlier Order in light of what has been stated herein above. In other words, the matter of compensating the legal heirs of the deceased on account of the prior disposal of the lot of 25 ghuntas is confined only to the present Respondent No, 2 since the present Respondent No, 1 was herself party to the transaction whereby the lot was disposed of. Furthermore, since the disposal took place in 1998 when the property was agricultural in nature, the present respondent No, 2 shall (relative to her share in the 25 ghuntas) be compensated proportionately from the shares of the other three legal heirs in terms of acreage alone and such area (or areas) shall be taken from the other lots of agricultural property which formed part of the estate of the deceased.
The choice in this regard shall be that of the present Respondent No, 2 subject to any objections taken by the other legal heirs before the EDO. The EDO (or equivalent revenue officer, howsoever designated) shall now dispose of the entire matter within a period of forty-five (45) days from today, but shall proceed after giving due notice to the legal heirs. However, should any legal heir fail to appear before him either herself or through duly instructed counsel the EDO shall nonetheless proceed with the exercise to ensure expeditious disposal in the light of what has been stated herein above.".
2. We have heard the learned ASC for the petitioners and perused the case record. A copy of order dated 18.12.2012, passed by Additional Commissioner-I, Hyderabad has been placed on record by Mr. Tarip Anwar Khokhar, A.D.C-I, Dadu at Hyderabad to show that in compliance of the impugned order the matter has been proceeded and disposed of in terms thereof. This position has not been disputed by the learned ASC for the petitioners to the extent of the order dated 18.8.2012. However, his grievance is that this order is not in conformity with the spirit of the impugned order and thus of no legal consequence.
3. We are unable to concur with such view of the matter. The factual position being that the impugned order has been implemented by the concerned Additional Commissioner-I, Dadu at Hyderabad, therefore, if any of the parties to this litigation has further grievance they are at liberty to agitate the same before the appropriate forum. This petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Leave refused.