Mrs. FAKHRUNNISA vs THE STATE
This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (South), which dismissed a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The applicant sought relief regarding the alleged dispossession of property. The trial court had dismissed the complaint, citing the applicant's failure to produce title documents and determining that the allegations fell outside the scope of the Act. Before the High Court, it was noted that the applicant had already filed a parallel civil suit for possession and mesne profits, which remained pending. Furthermore, the applicant admitted that the alleged dispossession occurred in 1998, whereas the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was promulgated on July 6, 2005. The Court held that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, does not possess retrospective effect and cannot be applied to causes of action arising prior to its enactment. Additionally, the Court found that maintaining parallel proceedings for the same relief of possession was not permissible. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revision application in limine, affirming that the statutory remedy under the Act was inapplicable to the facts presented.
- Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 have retrospective effect?
- Can a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 be maintained when a civil suit for the same relief is already pending?
- Is the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 applicable to dispossession events occurring prior to its promulgation?
- Section 4, Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005
ORDER
' MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.---This revision has been filed by applicant Mrs. Fakhrunnisa against the order, dated 23-9-2005 passed by VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) dismissing the complaint of applicant moved under section 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 on the ground that learned Judge without directing the S.H.O. Concerned to investigate the matter has disposed of the petition on the ground that applicant could not produce title documents of the property as called for by him and the provisions of said Act are not applicable to the allegations as contained in the said complaint and are beyond the purview of said Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.
1. It is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that after promulgation of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 on 6-7-2005 District Judge was competent to investigate the matter wherein an owner or occupier of a property had been dispossessed or control of it had been taken over by him. At the same moment, it is pointed out by him that a Civil Suit bearing No, 198 of 2001 for possession and mense profit has also been filed by him against the opponent in respect of the very property and same is still pending in Court. Hence the two parallel proceedings for the same relief of possession of property are not maintainable. Even otherwise as per statement counsel of applicant, he was dispossessed from the premises by respondent with the collusion of applicants, tenant since December, 1998 whereas the Act, XI of 2005 was promulgated on 6th July, 2005 having no retrospective effect.
' Mrs. Raana Khan appearing for State has opposed this revision on the ground that this Act is not applicable in the matter because any provisions of this Act does not show any retrospective effect for the cause of action accrued as back as in 1998.
' In view of the above reason, the revision application is hereby dismissed in limine.
Cited by 1 case
- ANJUM JILANI vs Mst. FEROZA JILANI and another 2008 YLR 2095