MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, J.--- The grievance of the petitioner is that he is a tenant of Shop, situated at Masana Road, Rohri. The shop is owned by one Syed Amanullah A.I Shah. The respondent No. 1 Deputy District Officer Rohri is causing harassment to him, and is asking to vacate the shop. According to petitioner, the respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to do so and cannot give any direction in this behalf to respondent No. 2 SHO Rohri Police Station.
2. The learned State counsel has filed comments on behalf of respondent No. 1. With the consent of learned Advocates for the parties, the entire petition is disposed of at the Katcha peshi stage. It is stated in the comments that notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 1 under the direction of Executive District Officer (Revenue) Sukkur, on the basis of a complaint by one Mst.
Naheed daughter of late Shahbaz Dino to the effect that petitioner has unauthorisedly occupied her ancestor's property. The respondent No. 1 has denied to have asked the petitioner for vacation of the shop in his possession.
3. The learned State Counsel has concerned that the Executive District Officer (Revenue) and Deputy District Officer (Revenue) have no jurisdiction to issue any notice to any party in respect of a dispute of civil nature and the exclusive jurisdiction in this behalf is vested in the Civil Court. It is not a revenue matter in which the Executive District Officer (Revenue) can take cognizance and call for the parties.
4. The learned State counsel has submitted that respondent No. 1 has merely issued a notice under directions of the Executive District Officer (Revenue) on the application of Mst. Naheed daughter of Late Shahbaz Dino, which does not amount to any harassment. I am not persuaded to agree with the contention and am of the considered view that issuance of any notice by any Executive Authority (Revenue or Police) to any Citizen without jurisdiction amounts to an illegality and an illegal act would come within the purview of causing harassment to a citizen. Under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, every citizen is required to be dealt with strictly in accordance with law. Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, provides protection of law to every citizen and it is inalienable right of every citizen, to be treated in accordance with law, wherever he may and of even other person for the time being within Pakistan.
Thus Article 4 of the Constitution does not merely provides protection to the citizen of this country but even the aliens, who are for the time being in Pakistan. Whenever any inalienable right is violated, it amounts to the violation of a fundamental right and consequently, would fall within the purview of harassm ent. All Executive Officers as well as judicial functionaries are required to exercise their jurisdiction strictly in accordance with law and not otherwise. Article 4 of the Constitution is similar to due process clause of the American Constitution and right of every citizen to be dealt with in accordance with law only is, to be jealously guarded and no encroachment upon such right of the citizen is to be countenanced in any circumstances, whatsoever.
5. For the foregoing reasons, it is declared that act of respondent No. 1 and Executive District Officer, Sukkur, whereby a notice has been issued to the petitioner in which they have no jurisdiction and the exclusive jurisdiction lies with the Civil Court amounts to harassment.
6. All executive authorities must desist scrupulously from all acts beyond their jurisdiction and falling within the parameters of an illegal act. The notice issued is consequently quashed and the Executive District Officer (Revenue) Sukkur, as well as respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed not to take any action, which falls within the jurisdiction of Civil Court and should neither hold any inquiry nor pass any orders dispossessing the petitioner from the premises in his possession.
Petition is allowed as above. .