2010 PLP 77 (YLR)
Mst. RUKHSAT BANO and another — Applicants Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 77 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, J |
| Parties | Mst. RUKHSAT BANO and another — Applicants Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 77 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 77 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 77 (YLR) (Mst. RUKHSAT BANO and another — Applicants Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahzado Saleem Nahiyoon, APG. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.3 & 7
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.439 & 561-A
Application for
Application filed by the applicants/complainants under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was dismissed with the observation that allotment of the applicants having been suspended, case did not fall within the ambit of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and no offence under S.3(1) of said Act was made out
Allotment of applicants admittedly was suspended by the Revenue Authorities, but without giving any chance of hearing to the parties
Applicants were not given the notice for suspension of their allotment
Sanad showing the allotment of the plot to the applicants reflected that at relevant time they were legally occupying the said plot
Order passed by the Trial Court was set aside and the Trial Court was directed to take cognizance against the respondents according to law. Iran Mir Halepota for Applicants.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL BHUTTO, J.
1. 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 applicant 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 H.B.T./R-34/K Application allowed.