MUHAMMAD FAROOQ Versus State

ORDER

This is post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.240 of 2004 dated 31-8-2004 registered on the complainant of Mst. Zubaida against petitioner and co accused Maroof under sections 380/411/458, P.P.C. at Police Station, Kamir, District, Sahiwal.

2. Briefly the prosecution story as alleged in the F.I.R. is that on 22-7-2004 at about 2-00 a.m. some household articles along with cash worth Rs.1,37,500 were allegedly stolen. Case was initially registered on the basis of suspicion.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of investigation section 458, P.P.C. was deleted and Maroof co-accused was declared innocent. That some articles of stolen property have already been recovered. That the petitioner was arrested on 7-9-2004 and is in the judicial lock-up since then and no (sic) against the petitioner does not fall within prohibitory clause.

4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that mobile phone has been recovered from the petitioner and challan has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction since 29-12-2004.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. Initially case was registered on the basis of suspicion. Stolen property has been recovered and no useful purpose will be served to put the petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period. Furthermore petitioner is in the judicial lock-up for the with S.16 of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958---Respondents had purchased said land in open auction through a conveyance deed followed by a mutation which was in accordance with law---Petitioner having failed to point out any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in impugned order, same could not be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.

M. Rahim for Petitioner.

M. Shamsher Iqbal Chugtai for Respondents Nos.4 to 8.

ORDER

The petitioner impugns the order passed by the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division dated 14-9-1994. The facts of the case have been fully noted in the impugned order and need not be reproduced in extenso. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's claim in its entirety was satisfied through adjustment of 17 Kanals. He applied for allotment of 9 Kanals, 16 Marlas which was in excess of his claim. This application was moved on the basis that the petitioner had been in cultivating possession of this excess land. According to the notification of the Board of Revenue dated 16-5-1973 the aforesaid land was a building site and was to be disposed of in accordance with section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958.

2. As per the aforesaid law an open auction was held wherein the private respondents were successful bidders and the land was sold to them through a conveyance deed followed by a mutation.

3. The impugned order dated 14-4-1994 is in accordance with law. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to advert to any such jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned order which would require interference therein while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction. In the circumstances, this Constitutional petition is dismissed.

H.B.T./H-73/L Petition dismised