KARACHI, March 31: Justice Mushir Alam of the Sindh High Court asked two plaintiffs claiming ownership of 30 acres of land each to approach the revenue authorities first for the redressal of their grievance.
Plaintiffs Yaqub Ahmed and Sumaira Shakeel submitted that they purchased the land situated in Korangi after obtaining the necessary permission from the mukhtiarkar concerned. It was sold by Sattar Dino, who drew his title from the legal heirs of Mohammad Ibrahim, the original owner. However, the executive district officer (revenue) of the district government declared the sale deed ?fraudulent? and asked them to appear before him and produce evidence in support of the validity of the document.
Opposing the plaint, Additional Advocate-General Abbas Ali argued that the plaintiffs should have joined the inquiry instead of instituting a suit. If an adverse order was passed by the EDO, they could have challenged it before the (provincial) board of revenue. Under the law, civil courts had no jurisdiction in the matter. He drew the court?s attention to the record, according to which the land was transferred to the legal heirs of Mohammad Ibrahim in July 2004. It was transferred to Sattar Dino in August 2004 and was sold to the plaintiffs in November 2004. There was no entry of the expiry of the original owner in the relevant register.
The court asked the plaintiffs to meet the EDO at 10 am on April 12. The EDO was directed to hear them to their satisfaction and duly consider their case before reaching a conclusion. The stay granted to the plaintiffs was not extended and the hearing was adjourned.
Plaintiffs Yaqub Ahmed and Sumaira Shakeel submitted that they purchased the land situated in Korangi after obtaining the necessary permission from the mukhtiarkar concerned. It was sold by Sattar Dino, who drew his title from the legal heirs of Mohammad Ibrahim, the original owner. However, the executive district officer (revenue) of the district government declared the sale deed ?fraudulent? and asked them to appear before him and produce evidence in support of the validity of the document.
Opposing the plaint, Additional Advocate-General Abbas Ali argued that the plaintiffs should have joined the inquiry instead of instituting a suit. If an adverse order was passed by the EDO, they could have challenged it before the (provincial) board of revenue. Under the law, civil courts had no jurisdiction in the matter. He drew the court?s attention to the record, according to which the land was transferred to the legal heirs of Mohammad Ibrahim in July 2004. It was transferred to Sattar Dino in August 2004 and was sold to the plaintiffs in November 2004. There was no entry of the expiry of the original owner in the relevant register.
The court asked the plaintiffs to meet the EDO at 10 am on April 12. The EDO was directed to hear them to their satisfaction and duly consider their case before reaching a conclusion. The stay granted to the plaintiffs was not extended and the hearing was adjourned.