Mst. RUKHSAT BANO and another vs GHULAM HUSSAIN and 4 others
This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Thatta, which dismissed a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The trial court had dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the applicants' allotment of the subject plot had been suspended by revenue authorities, and thus, no offence under section 3(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was made out. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint based on the administrative suspension of the applicants' allotment without providing them an opportunity for a hearing. Upon review, the High Court observed that the suspension of the allotment by revenue authorities occurred without notice or an opportunity for a hearing to the applicants. Furthermore, the court noted that the applicants possessed a Sanad evidencing their legal occupation of the plot. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's order, holding that the matter required proper cognizance. The case was remanded to the trial court for proceedings in accordance with the law.
- Can a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 be dismissed solely on the basis of an administrative suspension of title without a hearing?
- Does the suspension of an allotment by revenue authorities without notice to the occupant invalidate the basis for dismissing a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
- Is a trial court required to take cognizance of a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 when the complainant provides evidence of a valid Sanad?
- Section 3(1), Illegal Dispossession Act 2005
- Section 7, Illegal Dispossession Act 2005
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD ISMAIL BHUTTO, J.---Granted.
2. Granted subject to all just exceptions.
3. This is application for quashment of the order dated 19-6-2009 passed by the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Thatta in which the applicants had filed the application under Illegal Dispossession Act which was dismissed with the observation that the allotment of complainants was suspended which was not challenged before the competent forum by the complainant, therefore, this case does not fall within the ambit of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and no offence under section 3(1) of Illegal Dispossession Act is made out. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed and also application under section 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was dismissed being premature. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that they are legal occupants of the said plot and the respondents have illegally occupied their plot. On the other hand the learned A.P.G. Submits that the order has wrongly been passed by the II-Additional Sessions Judge as the Revenue Authority has admitted the claim of the applicants having the title of Sanad so this order may be set aside and matter may be referred to the Trial Court for taking cognizance against the accused according to law. The learned A.P.G has waived the notice.
I have heard both the learned, counsel and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the allotment of applicants/complainants was suspended by the Revenue Authorities but without giving any chance of hearing to the parties. The applicants were not given the notice for suspension of their allotment. The Sanad showing the allotment of the plot to the applicants seems that at that time they were legally occupying the said plot, which the applicanth have proved. In view of the above observation, the order of the, learned Trial Court is set-aside and the Trial Court is directed to take cognizance against the respondents according to law. Criminal Revision Application is disposed off as allowed.
4. As the Criminal Revision Application has been disposed off, the M.A. No,2899/09 has become infructuous