FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.----Petitioner has filed the instant petiti on against the official respondents and respondent No. 4, who was once the sovereign ruler of the Khairpur State, which is now the part of the State of Pakistan under an accession treaty signe d between the respondent No. 4 being ruler of the State of Khairpur and Government of Pakistan.
2. Laconic facts narrated by the petitioner in the memo. of petition are that the father of the petitioner namely Mr. Tahir Imtiaz has some property dispute with the former ruler of the state (responden t No. 4), who used his influence over official respondents to vacate the property i.e. Dilshad Manzil under occupation of the petitioner's family . The father of the petitioner has filed a petition 4529/15 against the official respondents and the respondent No. 4. The said petition was disposed of under the comments of the official respondents with certain directions to the parties to take legal course regarding the dispute. Allegedly; instead of adopting legal course, the respondent No. 4 started using the official respondents and calling the father of petitioner for handing over the said property to him. He also threatened for forceful removal of the petitioner's father from the said property and initiating criminal cases against him. This action of the respondent prompted the petitioner to file a C.P. No. 1690/2016 but the same was withdrawn. Allegedly , in between the night of 29th and 30th April, the respondents Nos. 1 and 3 brought heavy force of police and rangers, and after arresting the male members, turned the womenfolk out of the property .
Allegedly , the police also lodged a false FIR involving the father of the petitioner for committing dacoity in Dilshad Manzil.
3. The petitioner filed the instant petition with a prayer of the following reliefs:
(a) To direct the respondent No. 1 to immediately remove all the police personnel and other criminal who have been put into possession by him (respondent No. 1) in Dilshad Manzil by interfering in civil dispute despite of his undertaking given in C.P . No. D-4529/15.
(b) To restrain the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 from interfering in the civil dispute between the father of the petitioner and respondent No.4.
(c) To award cost of the petition and grant any other relief.
4. After service of notices, the respondents appeared and filed their comments/ob jection. The official respondents have denied all the allegations leveled against them while objections filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 portray an entirely different picture as against the contents of the instant petition. It is alleged that the father of the petitioner is a criminal-minded person, who in collision with other like-minded people intended to usurp the property in question, which is the ancestral property of the former ruler of Khairpur Mir's. It depicts the objections that the father of the petitioner namely Tahir Imtiaz was an employee/manager of respondent No. 4 (His Highness Mr. Ali Murad Khan, the former ruler of Khairpur) who had allowed him to reside within Dilshad Manzil temporarily . It is further revealed by respondent No.4 that some valuable antiques were stored in a separate portion of one of the palaces of the former rulers i.e. Dilshad Manzil. His Highness has appointed Muhammad Aslam, Akber Hussain, and Mir Hassan as guards of the said palace especially to look after the antiques and other valuable articles comprising swords, statues, etc. The grandfather of the petitioner namely Imtiaz Phulpoto was also under the employment of respondent No.4 but on account of greed, he became disloyal to his master and managed some fake documents to claim the ownership over the said property . It is also disclosed in the objection that respondent No.4 has previously given a notice to the said grandfather of the petitioner for vacating the premises. The objection filed on behalf of respondent No.4 further draws attention towards the different constitutional petitions filed by the petitioner or his father and order passed by this Court, which itself verifies that Dilshad Manzil is the property of the former ruler of Khairpur . It is also mentioned in the objections that the petitioner party anxiously negotiated the matter with respondent No. 4 and finally vacated the said property in the last week of March 2016 on the verbal understanding that respondent No.4 would make him some payment (commonly known as Bhatta or Pagri) to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/-. However , thither , they demanded an exorbitant amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- which was refused and under a fit of annoyance, Tahir Imtiaz with other criminal persons armed with deadly weapons attacked upon Dilshad Manzil and committed the robbery of valuable antiques. The guard deputed at the said property lodged F.I.R. No. 98/2016 under sections 395, 452, 448, 511, 427, 506/2 regarding such incident while another F.I.R. No. 102/2016 under sections 420, 406, 407, 468, 469, 470, 471, P.P.C. was lodged by a close relative of respondent No.4 namely Mr. Mir Ghulam Qasim Advocate. After denying all the allegations leveled in the instant petition, it is clarified by respondent No. 4 that Senior Member Board of Revenue vide order dated 13-02-2007 had already decided the civil dispute in respect of Dilshad Manzil in favour of respondent No.4.
5. We have intently listened to the arguments advanced and also scanned the available record with the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
6. Mr. Mangi, appearing for the petitioner , opens his arguments by describing the facts mentioned within the body of the instant petition. He goes on to say that Dilshad Manzil was sold out by the then ruler of the Khairpur State in the year 1929, who executed a sale deed, which is a registered document to one Ghulam Muhammad alias Bago Butt. From the legal heir of Ghulam Muhammad, the said property was acquired by the father of the petitioner through a sale agreement. He submits that now respondent No. 4 has no right over the said property unless the sale deed executed in the year 1929 is canceled by a competent civil court. According to him, the official respondents under the influence of responding No. it have tried to dispossess the family of the petitioner from Dilshad Manzil due to which, a petition being C.P. No. 4529/2015 (Re: Tahir Imtiaz v. Province of Sindh) was filed in which the official respondents have given an undertaking for not interfering in the possession of the family of the petitioner , as such the same was disposed of relying on their undertaking. He submits that the official respondents have violated that undertaking and in between the night of 29th and 30th April, 2016, respondent No. I with a heavy Police Force and Rangers dispossessed the family of the petitioner by moving out the womenfolk and arresting the male members. According to him, the police have lodged false FIRs and the father of die petitioner behind the bars under fabricated charges. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the family of the petitioner was wrongfully and illegally dispossessed; therefore, it will be in the interest of justice that the possession of the petitioner family be restored while respondent No. 4 may be directed to approach the competent civil court in respect of his claim if any. He submits that from the available material, it is manifested that the possession of the property was with the petitioner , which was forcefully taken over by the respondent 4 through the official respondents. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the case of Sargodha Textile Mills Limited through General Manager v. Habib Bank Limited through Manager and another (2007 SCMR 1240 ) and Muhammad Aslam v. Station House Officer and others (1993 MLD 152 ).
7. Mr. A.R. Peerzada, learned counsel for respondent No.4, submits that Dilshad Manzil is the ancestral property of repondent 4 who was the former ruler of the State of Khairpur and this fact is recognized by the Government of Pakistan through an instrument issued by the Ministry of States and F. R. Division. He draws attention towards the said document wherein the name of Dilshad Manzil is mentioned at Serial No.1 of the properties of the former ruler of Khairpur State i.e respondent No. 4. While describing the background, he submits that one Imtiaz Hussain Phulpoto was the manager of respondent No.4, and respondent No.4 had allowed him to reside in a portion of the property in question temporarily . The said Imtiaz Hussain Phulpoto was the grandfather of the petitioner but he was never allowed to enjoy full control over the entire property as there were several antiques, statues, and other valuable articles lying within Dilshad Manzil and for the protection of those articles, the respondent No. 4 has posted several persons as guards according to him, after some time the grandfather and father of the petitioner became greedy and they managed some false and fabricated documents showin g that they had purchased the property from an imposter owner . He submits that the sale deed relied upon by the petitioner is nothing but a forged document, which does not require any decree for cancellation as a document which is apparently and prima facie false and forged is not required any decree of cancellation. He submits that not only the government of Pakistan but the revenue authorities of the province have already accepted that Dilshad Manzil and surrounding land/area belong to respondent No.4. He draws attention towards several documents annexed with his objection to fortify his verbalization regarding the ownership of respondent No.4 over the property in question. According to him, the purpose of the father and grandfather of the petitioner was nothing but to blackm ail respondent No. 4 for getting some undue advantages. He submits that respondent No. 4 has demanded the elders of the petitioner to hand over the said property but the father of the petitioner has filed a constitutional petitio n with false allegations and the same was disposed of under the statement filed by the respondents. Thereafter , the father of the petitioner entered into negotiation with respondent No.4, and they vacated the premises in the end of March 2016 on the verbal assurance of respondent No. 4 for paying Rs.30,00,000/- as Pugree or Bhatta. He further submits that later on he raised the demand of Pugree or Bhatta to Rs.2,00,00,000/-which was refused. According to him, due to such refusal, the father of the petitioner became furious and during night the between 29th and 30th April, 2016, he along with a teeming number of criminals attack Dilshad Manzil and have stolen several antique and valuable articles. As such F.I.Rs were lodged in which the father of the petitioner was arres ted and subsequently the stolen articles were recovered from the possess ion of his associates. He submits that the petitioner and his family have no right over the property in question and they have not come to the court with clean hand, as such they do not deserve any relief. He further submits that there is no need for respondent No. 4 to approach a civil court as the property in question is having a clean title duly admitted by all the authorities as well as the Government of Pakistan while the document relied upon by the petitioner are bogus and have already been declared so by the revenue court.
8. Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Naich, Asst. A.G. submi ts that the official respondents have already filed their comments in which they denied the allegations leveled against them. He submits that the employee / representative of respondent No.4 has lodged F.I.Rs against the father of the petitioner and some other persons, which are under trial. He points out that some stolen/robbed articles from Dilshad Manzil have been recovered from one of the nominated accused.
9. In the instant petition, the petitioner contends that he has been dispossessed by the official authorities from the property in question. The petitioner claims the title over the said property under a sale agreement executed between the alleged legal their of Ghulam Muhammad alias Bago Butt and his father Tahir Imtiaz. It is demonstrated that Ghulam Muhammad has acquired title through Sale Deed allegedly registered and executed by Mir Ali Nawaz Khan Talpur (the then ruler of Khairpur) in favour of his junior begum and Ghulam Muhammad. The learned counsel for the petitioner has given much stress upon the said sale deed and repeatedly emphasized that without cancellation of the said documen t through a civil action, the claim of the petitioner family remained intact.
Since considerable emphasis is given to the said document, therefore, we think it appropriate to address this aspect first. The copy of the alleged sale deed is annexed with the petition as Annexure-B. It is typed upon a non- judicial Stamp Paper of Rs.5/- of British India. The first page of the document does not bear signatures of the seller or purchaser . The back side of the document bears the purported signature of the Ruler of Khairpur and the document is said to be executed on 15th October 1929. The fate of the said Sale Deed has already been discussed by the Assistant Commissioner , Khairpur through a letter bearing No.AC/- 251/2016 dated 29-02-2016 and addressed to the Deputy Commissioner , Khairpur (copy annexed with the objection of respondent No. 4). We would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the said letter as under: "Coming over to the Registered Deed of 1929 (Annex B) in which his Highness is allegedly selling Dilshad Manzil and other property , the authenticity of the said Registered Deed is questionable on many grounds. Firstly , it is not understandable if a ruler of State will sell his property in its heydays and that too to his own wife for a consideration of Rs.50,000. Secondly , the Registered Deed is so old that its authenticity is very difficult to prove. Sub-Registrar vide No. 89 of 2009, dated 17-01-2009 also negates the existence of this Registered Deed (Annex C). Thirdly , this Registered Deed has no mention whatso ever in any revenue record. Fourthly , this Registered Deed was never brought to the notice of revenue staff or His Highness before. Fifthly , entries of some of the Survey Nos, mentioned in the said Registered Deed (1093, 1094, 1095, 1096 (have already been restored in the favour of His Highness by Board of Revenue vide Order No. SMBR/201 dated 13/02/2007 (Annex D) which proves that BOR did not take into account that this registered deed. Sixthly , according to MD Estate of His Highness, the registered deed is produced on Indian Stamp Paper while Khairpur State being independent in 1929 had its own Stamp Paper and Seal. All of these circumstances put a big? On the genuineness of the said Registered Deed."
10. We are of the view that the above observations of the Assistant Commissioner are more than enough to discard the Sale Deed. Besides, it is worth saying that the Government of Pakistan under a document issued by the State and FR. Division has already admitted that Dilshad Manzil is the ancestral and personal property of respondent No,4. Even if for the argument sake, it is considered that there was a registered sale deed, the same has lost its legitimacy under the new legal landscape after the creation of Pakistan due to a declaration by the Government of Pakistan acknowledging Dilshad Manzil as the personal property of respondent NO. 4 particularly when it was never materialized through mutation or transfer despite lapse of decades after its alleged registration.
11. So far as the case of possession of the petitioner and/or his family members over the disputed property is concerned, there are only words of the petitioner that his family was dispossessed on the specific date. Official respondents have denied such allegations while respondent No. 4 is also denying such allegations. It is contended by respondent No.1 that under some negotiation and assurance the petitioner's father and grandfather have vacated Dilshad Manzil but later on, he tried to grab more financial benefits instead of earlier agreed between the parties. We consider that such allegations and counter-allegations convey factual controversy , which cannot be decided in the constitutional jurisdiction. It is not out of place to point out that the petitioner has not sought the restoration of Session of the petitioner or his family in the prayer clause of the petition, as such the same also cannot be entertained. Besides, for the relief sought by the petitioner , an alternate remedy was also available to the petitioner and the said course was not opted by the petitioner . The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant petition is not maintainable, as such the same was dismissed by our short order dated 21.10.2020 and these are the reasons for the same.