' Mirza Tayyar and 12 others have brought the present petition for quashment under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Against Syed Jan and others of the order, dated 4-9-1995 of Extra-Assistant Commissioner/Illaqa Qazi, Mastuj, District Chitral and the order of the District and Sessions Judge/Zilla Qazi, District Chitral, dated 4-8-1996 vide which both the lower Courts had attached the disputed property under section 146, Cr.P.C. And that the observation of the Courts below were that since the disputed property was a "Qaumi" pasture for grazing cattle of both the parties were not entitled to claim possession over the same. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid orders the present petition has been preferred.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant record.
3. Perusal of the complaint would reflect that Syed Jan and one other had brought a complaint under section 145, Cr.P.C. Against Mirza Tayyar and 9 others before the Illaqa Qazi Mastuj. This complaint was referred by the Illaqa Qazi to the local police for enquiry and report. On this complaint the parties submitted their respective claims and evidence was recorded. The learned Illaqa Qazi was of the view that in accordance with the documents Exh.P.W.1/1, P.W.1/3 and Exh.P.W.1/5 the disputed land was the "Qaumi" pasture consisting of huge area and that it was for the benefit of the inhabitants to graze their cattle and that both the parties were using the same, therefore, there can be no dispute over it. As none of the parties was in physical possession, therefore, the disputed property was attached under section 146, Cr.P.C. Vide order, dated 4-9- 1995. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid order Mirza Tayyar etc. Preferred a revision petition before the District Judge/Zila Qazi, Chitral who after hearing the parties agreed with the observation of the Illaqa Qazi but in para. 10 of his judgment observed that the disputed land being a pasture was State property in view of the Notification of the Government of N.-W.F.P. Issued in the year 1974 as amended in 1975. Since the learned Zila Qazi had in to agreed with the findings of the Illaqa Qazi in addition to the aforementioned observations that the land in question belonged to the State, therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court.
4. The learned counsel for both the parties appearing before me submit that the property does not belong to the State, it remained attached under section 146, Cr.P.C., therefore, the order of the Zila Qazi was unwarranted. In the absence of any positive proof coupled with the fact that the question of title was exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
5. I feel that there is no substance in the petition. The findings of the two Courts below warrant no interference as such this petition is dismissed With observation that the parties if so desire can seek their remedy in the Civil Court regarding the title of the property.