Nasrullah, etc. vs The State
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the petitioners' convictions and sentences under section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The trial court had sentenced the petitioners to three years of rigorous imprisonment and fines, alongside compensation to the complainant. The core legal questions involve the competency of appellate and revisional proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, in the absence of explicit statutory provisions; the maintainability of a complaint under the Act when ownership disputes are pending before civil courts and the Evacuee Trust Property Board; and whether isolated acts, such as one-time ploughing of land, constitute 'dispossession' under the Act. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these issues, particularly the interpretation of 'land grabber' status and the evidentiary requirements for proving dispossession beyond reasonable doubt. Given the short sentences and the substantial portion already served, the Court directed the office to expedite the hearing of the main appeal.
- Whether an appeal or revision petition is competent before the High Court under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, in the absence of an express provision?
- Whether a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is maintainable when the title and possession of the land are already sub judice before a Civil Court or the Evacuee Trust Property Board?
- Does a one-time act of ploughing land, without continued physical occupation, constitute dispossession under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
- Section 3(2), Illegal Dispossession Act 2005
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J. -- The petitioners were convicted for an offence under section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 vide judgment 31,03.2010 handed down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hafizabad and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years each and a fine of Rs, 5,000/- each or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. The petitioners were further ordered to pay a sum of Rs, 1,000/- each to Mst.
Safia Bibi complainant by way of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. An appeal filed by the petitioners against their convictions and sentences as well as a revision petition filed by Mst. Safia Bibi complainant seeking enhancement of the petitioners' sentences were subsequently dismissed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide consolidated judgment dated 30.11.2010. Hence, the present petition before this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners arid the learned Additional Prosecutor- General, Punjab and after going through the relevant record of the case appended with this petition leave to appeal is granted inter alia to consider the following questions:--
(i) Whether in the absence of any provision, for an appeal or a revision petition in the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 the petitioners' appeal and the complainant's revision petitions were competent before the High Court?
(ii)Whether the complainant's complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was competent when the matter pertaining to ownership and possession of the relevant piece of land was already sub judice before a Civil Court as well as before the Evacuee Trust Property Board?
(iii)Whether in the absence of any concrete proof available in that regard the petitioners could be treated as land grabbers/land mafia/ qabza group for the purposes of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
(iv)Whether the learned Courts below had correctly appreciated and followed the law declared by a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in the case of Zahoor Ahmad and five others v. The State and three others (PLD 2007 Lahore 231) which was affirmed by this Court in the case of Bashir Ahmad v. Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad (PLD 2010 SC 661)?
(v)Whether a one-time plugging of a . piece of land in the absence of continued physical occupation, thereof amounts to dispossession for the purposes of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
(vi)Whether or not the failure on the part of the complainant to produce Taj Muhammad PW and Alam PW before the learned Trial court had weakened her case because, according to the complaint itself, it was Taj Muhammad PW who had informed the complainant about the incident in issue:'
(vii) Whether, in the circumstances of this case, the complainant had succeeded in proving her case against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt or not?
3. As the sentences of imprisonment passed against the petitioners are relatively short and they have already served out a substantial part thereto by now, therefore, the Office is directed to fix the main appeal for regular hearing at an early date.