HYDERABAD, Nov 7: A division bench of the Sindh High Court Hyderabad circuit, comprising Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany here on Wednesday restrained the Army Monitoring Cell (AMC), Hyderabad, and any other agency from interfering in the matter of a petitioner which is to be decided by the Rent Controller.

The court observed that the matter pertained to the occupancy of a place, which was to be decided by proper authorities therefore neither the AMC nor any other agency had any right to interfere in it.

The matter was related to the petition of one Fatah Khan, who has a dispute with Jan Mohammad and claimed that the respondent had approached the AMC, which had issued him notices through the Mukhtiarkar of Tando Allahyar.

Fatah Khan filed the petition against AMC in charge Captain Shabeer, the SSP of Hyderabad, the SHO of Missan police station and one Jan Mohammad, with the prayers that the court should direct official respondents not to harass and humiliate him at the instance of Jan Mohammad.

Syed Javed Shah Bukhari, advocate, represented the petitioner.

Referring to decisions, reported in the Supreme Court Monthly Review 1994 on page-2284 and PLD-2001 Karachi on page-135, Additional AG of Sindh Masood A. Noorani argued that under article 193 of the Constitution the officials of armed forces had been given immunity therefore the petition in question was not maintainable.

The petitioner informed the court that in 1989 one Sain Bux and Gul Sher (petitioner’s step father) had filed a suit for permanent injunction and declaration against Jan Mohammad, Mohammad Rahim and Taj Mohammad, Ms Zainab, Mukhtiarkar of Tando Allahyar and the assistant commissioner of Tando Allahyar and it was decreed on specific terms of compromise.

The parties had agreed to the decree and judgment passed in 1990 and undertook to abide by the conditions.

The defendant who was to take over the possession of the house, as per decree, did not come to claim possession and rather appeared before the AMC in charge of Hyderabad, in February 2000, making a false representation by concealing facts.

He claimed that the petitioner was using his influence to retain the possession over the property.

The petitioner said that the AMC in charge issued him notices through Mukhtiarkar Tando Allahyar for March 31 this year. He appeared before the AMC in charge and disclosed the facts.

He said that the Mukhtiarkar after recording his statement arrived at the conclusion that the demand of Jan Mohammad was unjustified and illegal.

The petitioner stated that his matter was purely of civil nature but notices were issued through the police in order to harass him with ulterior motives.

He said he appeared before AMC in charge Captain Shabeer and produced relevant record of the case. He alleged that official respondents issued him threats of getting the possession vacated on their own and they had no respect for the court’s decree.

The lawyer argued that the official respondents had no jurisdiction to interfere or entertain the application, involving matter of civil nature and in spite of the fact that the assistant commissioner and the Mukhtiarkar had termed the demand of Jan Muhammad illegal.

The petitioner apprehended that the army officials were supposed to deal with the matter in accordance with the law and not of their own free will.

He requested the court to declare notices, issued to him in June and July as illegal and null and void. He further prayed that the official respondents should be restrained from harassing and humiliating him.