P L D 2006 Lahore 680 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM SHAMI — Petitioner Versus ZULFIQAR BUTT and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2006 Lahore 680 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM SHAMI — Petitioner Versus ZULFIQAR BUTT and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2006 Lahore 680 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2006 Lahore 680 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2006 Lahore 680 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM SHAMI — Petitioner Versus ZULFIQAR BUTT and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 3---Complaint against illegal dispossession---Dismissal of complaint---Petitioner, who claimed to be owner of property in dispute on basis of registered sale-deed had alleged that respondents were illegally and forcibly occupying said property, and had filed petition under S.3(2) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 before Additional Sessions Judge---Petitioner in his said petition had prayed that respondents be dealt with in accordance with law and possession of property, be delivered to petitioner---Said petition was dismissed by virtue of impugned order---S.H.O. concerned had reported that respondents were in possession of property in dispute for the last more than fifteen years and that fact was also admitted by petitioner---Additional Sessions Judge had rightly come to the conclusion that complaint of petitioner was not maintainable because Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 whereunder it was filed was promulgated in the year 2005 and S.3(1) of said Act created a new offence, punishment whereof was prescribed in its subsection (2)---Penal part of the statute was to be interpreted strictly and an illegal dispossession as contemplated in S.3(1) of the Act could be punished only if it had taken place after promulgation of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---Counsel for petitioner had not been able to point out that impugned order was perverse, arbitrary or fanciful so as to merit interference by High Court in revision---Legal and well-reasoned order could not be interfered with in revision by High Court.
- Azam Nazeer Tarar for Petitioner.
- Aftab Gul for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Aazar Latif Khan for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 3
Complaint against illegal dispossession
Petitioner, who claimed to be owner of property in dispute on basis of registered sale-deed had alleged that respondents were illegally and forcibly occupying said property, and had filed petition under S.3(2) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 before Additional Sessions Judge
Petitioner in his said petition had prayed that respondents be dealt with in accordance with law and possession of property, be delivered to petitioner
Said petition was dismissed by virtue of impugned order
S.H.O. concerned had reported that respondents were in possession of property in dispute for the last more than fifteen years and that fact was also admitted by petitioner
Additional Sessions Judge had rightly come to the conclusion that complaint of petitioner was not maintainable because Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 whereunder it was filed was promulgated in the year 2005 and S.3(1) of said Act created a new offence, punishment whereof was prescribed in its subsection (2)
Penal part of the statute was to be interpreted strictly and an illegal dispossession as contemplated in S.3(1) of the Act could be punished only if it had taken place after promulgation of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005
Counsel for petitioner had not been able to point out that impugned order was perverse, arbitrary or fanciful so as to merit interference by High Court in revision
Legal and well-reasoned order could not be interfered with in revision by High Court.
Judgment & Decree
M. BILAL KHAN, J.
Muhammad Aslam Shami son of Sheikh Abdul Aziz, the petitioner, by filing the instant revision petition has impugned the order dated 26-1-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby he had dismissed his complaint under section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, filed against Zulfiqar Butt, Maj. Ibrar Hussain Shah, Zaida Butt (Zahid Pervaiz) and Hamid Butt (Hamid Javed), respondents Nos. l to 4, respectively.
2. Concisely the facts giving rise to instant petition, according to the contents thereof, were that the petitioner was owner of property bearing No. S-86-R-429, Ferozepur Road, 'Nasirabad, Lahore measuring three kanals on the basis of registered sale-deed dated 1-11-2005; that respondents Nos.1 to 4 were illegally and forcibly occupying the said property; that the petitioner filed a petition under section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 before the learned Additional Sessions judge, Lahore praying therein that the respondents be dealt with in accordance with law and the possession of the property be delivered to him; the said learned Judge proceeded to dismiss the same by virtue of the impugned order.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record available on the file. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had initially requisitioned a report from the S.H.O., who had reported that the respondents were in possession of the said property for the last more than fifteen years and this fact was also admitted by the petitioner: Keeping in view the said situation, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had rightly come to the conclusion that the complaint was not maintainable because the Act, whereunder it had been filed, was promulgated in the year 2005. Section 3(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 creates a new offence, the punishment whereof is prescribed in its subsection (2). This penal part of the statute is to be interpreted strictly and an illegal dispossession as contemplated in section 3(1) can be punished only if it had taken place after promulgation of the said Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out that the impugned order is perverse, arbitrary or fanciful, so as to merit interference by this Court.
4. For what has been stated above, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which has been found to be. a legal and well-reasoned order. There is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-357/L Petition dismissed.