ABDUL KARIM FIRDOUS Versus State

ORDER

MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.--- Briefly the facts of the case are that petitioners filed a complaint against the private respondents under section 3(1) read with section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, precisely to the effect that they (petitioners) are owners of land measuring 1-kanal situated in Khewit No.187/149 Khattoni No.359, Multan road opposite Faisal Bank, Qasba Booraywala under Mutation No.1912/1 dated 21-8-2004. Further para-2 of the said complaint reads as under:--

With above narration, it was averred that in June, 2010, the petitioners asked respondents Nos.3 and 4 that property was required for personal use and that possession of the same be returned to the petitioners. Instead of returning back possession of the land, respondents Nos.3 and 4 started raising unauthorized and illegal construction on the said property and furthermore without permission of the petitioners they made Habib and Munir to sit and run oven clay in front of the said property and also parked the vehicles of adjoining workshops around the property. Sooner the petitioners got knowledge they along with witnesses went at the site, whereupon, workers of respondents variously armed came at the spot and extended threats. Petitioners asked the respondents to vacate the property but they keep on possessing the same without any lawful authority. On receipt of complaint, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala recorded cursory evidence of the petitioners, summoned the respondents and on conclusion of trial vide impugned judgment dated 14-12-2013 dismissed the private complaint holding that "All this reflect that dispute regarding the possession of the property in question is between 02 individuals and neither any allegation nor any proof has come on the record that accused belong to land mafia/Qabza Group or property grabbers, hence section 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act does not attract in this case."

2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and perused the entire available record with their assistance in the light of respective case law on the subject.

3. Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which in fact is the controlling clause, is reproduced hereunder:--

"(1) No one shall enter into or upon any property to dispossess, grab, control or occupy it without having any lawful authority to do so with the intention to dispossess, grab, control or occupy the property from owner or occupier of such property.

(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of the sub-section (1) shall, without prejudice to any punishment to which he may be liable under any other law for the time being in force, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years and with fine and the victim of the offence shall also be compensated in accordance with the provision of section 544-A of the Code."

As shall be seen from the above reproduced section, the basic ingredient to invoke the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 would be that accused must enter into or upon any property without having any lawful authority to do so and with intention of dispossession of or grabbing, controlling or occupying the property from the owner or occupier thereof. In the light of above quoted paragraph from the complaint itself, one thing is quite obvious that respondents did not forcibly enter into the disputed property, rather admittedly the possession of the disputed property was handed over to the respondents by the petitioners themselves voluntarily, whereas, to bring a case into the pail of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, all the ingredients must co-exist. In the presence of specific consent by the petitioners in handing over possession of the disputed property to the respondents, to get the said property subsequently vacated, the petitioner should adopt procedure provided for ejectment or vacation of the property under other relevant laws, but not through proceedings under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

4. For what has been discussed above, to maintain a complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, it must contain the basic ingredients i.e. the accused must enter into the property and dispossess the owner/ occupant, without having any lawful authority to do so, but when a person has been authorized to use the said property then the owner/landlord who himself delivered possession of the property in a lawful manner, cannot seek the shelter under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, as it would in fact tantamount to declare other relevant laws redundant and the petitioners cannot be allowed to circumvent other lawful process under the garb of a complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The learned trial court, therefore, committed no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect in dismissing the complaint of the petitioner. This writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.

HBT/A-48/L Petition dismissed.