FAKIR ALI BUX vs PROVINCE OF SINDH through Home Department, Karachi
This matter concerned an application for contempt of court filed under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan and Sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The applicant alleged that the Mukhtiarkar had committed contempt by effecting a mutation in the record of rights concerning disputed land, despite a previous statement made to the court by the A.A.-G. that no action contrary to law would be taken. The original constitutional petition, which led to the undertaking, had been disposed of after the S.H.O. and A.A.-G. assured the court that no harassment or unlawful action would be taken against the petitioner regarding the land dispute. The core legal question was whether the Mukhtiarkar's action of effecting a mutation based on a registered sale-deed constituted a violation of the undertaking or contempt of court. The court held that the Mukhtiarkar was legally bound to effect mutations based on registered sale-deeds. In the absence of any specific court restriction prohibiting such a mutation, performing this statutory duty was not a violation of the general statement that no action contrary to law would be taken. Consequently, the application for contempt of court was dismissed as misconceived.
- Does a Mukhtiarkar's action of effecting a mutation based on a registered sale-deed constitute contempt of court if a general undertaking not to act contrary to law was previously given?
- Can a statutory duty performed by an official, in the absence of a specific court restriction, be considered a violation of a general undertaking not to act contrary to law?
- What are the grounds for initiating contempt of court proceedings under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Is a contempt application maintainable if the alleged contemnor acted in accordance with a statutory requirement?
- Section 107, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 204, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Section 3, Contempt of Courts Act
- Section 4, Contempt of Courts Act
' MUHAMMAD SADIQ LEGHARI, J.--- On 28-4-2001 Fakir Ali Bux filed Constitution Petition No,S-432 of 2001 stating therein substantially that in respect of dispute in respect of land civil litigation is going on between him and respondent No,4 Choudhary Ghulam Rasool. Further that the Mukhtiarkar Rohri and S.H.O. Salehpat were harassing and threatening him of changing Khata. He also alleged that S.H.O. Police Station Salehpat has threatened him of initiating the proceedings under section 107, Cr.P.C.
2. In response to the notice issued by this Court the S.H.O. Concerned appeared and filed statement that he neither has nor will cause any harassment to the petitioner in respect of the disputed land.
The learned A.A.-G. Also submitted that respondent No,2 Mukhtiarkar will not take any action against the petitioner contrary to law and if any action is taken that would be strictly in accordance with law, in the result of those statements the petition was disposed of as not pressed.
Afterwards the petitioner filed present application under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan read with sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging therein that Mukhtiarkar had committed contempt of Court by resorting to harass the petitioner by effecting mutation in the record of rights in respect of land in the suit pending between the parties specially 1st Class Suit No,94 of 2001. While arguing the application, the learned Advocate representing the petitioner stated that despite statement given by the S.H.O. And learned A.A.-G. Mukhtiarkar effected the mutation in respondent of Survey No,408(1.00 acres). He referred to Annexure "A" to the application.
He also contended that this was done despite the application by the petitioner that no such mutation should be effected.
3. The learned A.A.-G. And the learned Advocate representing Mukhtiarkar respondent No,2 have stated that the mutation was effected on the basis of registered sale-deed which the Mukhtiarkar was required to do under the law and as such it was not the violation of the statement that he would not do any act in contravention of law.
4. I have perused the true copy of the entry which indicates that mutation was effected on the basis of registered sale-deed. Nowhere it is alleged that there was any restriction from the Court operating against such mutation. In absence of such restriction the B act performed by the Mukhtiarkar was not in violation of the statement given by the learned A.A.-G. Before the Court. The application is misconceived and is dismissed along with listed applications.