1986 P Cr (PLP)

Criminal Revision No. 206 of 1985, decided on 25th January, 1986. ‑‑‑S. 447‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439‑‑Land Reforms Act (II of 1977)‑‑Conviction‑‑Revision against‑‑Accused purchasing some piece of land from a Khata in which complainant was co‑sharer‑ Complainant was tenant of his co‑sharer in said piece of land‑‑Accused party forcibly entering in possession of disputed land and dispossessing complainant‑‑Prosecution witnesses consistently supporting complainant's version‑‑No misreading of evidence by Courts below‑‑No illegality or infirmity pointed out in judgment of Courts below‑‑Possession of complainant .in disputed land at time of incident admitted‑‑Contention that being owners /purchasers accused were entitled to get into possession of land by use of limited force, repelled‑‑No citizen, held, can be permitted to take law in his own hands‑‑In case where land is not partition able in view of provisions of Land Reforms Act, remedy, held further, is provided in said Act itself which should have been followed by accused‑‑Conviction maintained in circumstances. Kabir Mahmood for Petitioners. Facts necessary for decision of this petition are that the complainant Bashir Ahmad was a co‑sharer in Khata No. 163, Khatuni No. 562 measuring 12 Acres in Chak No. P‑KB., Tehsil Burewala. Mst. Elahi Sain was also a co‑sharer. However; Bashir Ahmad complainant cultivated her share of land as tenant. She sold 23 Kanals of land to Ahmad Yar and Lal accused on 22‑5‑1982. It is alleged in the complaint that in between the night of 12/13‑6‑1982, Ahmad Yar, Lal and 18 others forcibly entered in possession of the said 23 Kanals of land and they also forcibly took possession of his house by throwing away all the household effects. The complainant Bashir Ahmad thereafter filed a complaint on 17‑8‑1982. The accused were summoned to face trial after recording of preliminary evidence. They were convicted under section 447, P.P.C. only to sentence of fine of Rs.500 or in default one month S.I. They went up in appeal against their conviction and sentence which was maintained by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari vide impugned judgment, dated 7‑3‑1985.

2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the land purchased by the two petitioners was joint property; that the same could not be partitioned in view of the Land Reforms Regulations and as such, even if the petitioners took forcible possession of the land in dispute, then also they could not be said to have committed any criminal offence and that the dispute between the parties was only of civil nature.

3. I have gone through the record of this case with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioners. The prosecution case is supported by Bashir Ahmad complainant P.W. 1, Mst. Darian P.W. 2 and Ghulam Fareed P.W.

3. The accused when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the charge and pleaded innocence. They produced Allah Ditta D.W. 1 and Niaz Ahmed D.W. 2 in their defence. These two witnesses stated that the present case has been brought against the accused falsely with mala fide and that they did not hear or see any occurrence. It was stated by Allah Ditta that Bashir Ahmed himself had given possession of the land to the accused. A perusal of the evidence would show that the three prosecution witnesses have consistently supported the case of the complainant. There is no misreading of evidence by Courts below. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any other illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. The possession of the complainant on 23 Kanals of land, now in dispute, as tenant under Mst. Elahi Sain before the purchase by Ahmed Yar and Lal, and at the time of occurrence is not denied by the learned counsel who took up the plea that they were entitled to get into possession of the disputed land even by use of limited force. I am not prepared to agree with the learned counsel that the accused‑petitioners were entitled to get into possession of the land being owners /purchasers without due course of law. No citizen can be permitted to take law in his own hands. In cases where the land is not partition able in view of the provisions of Land Reforms Act, the remedy is provided in the said Act itself which should have been followed instead of forcibly taking possession of the land in dispute. In view of this I find no merits in this petition which is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the petitioners is maintained. The complainant will be entitled to seek restoration of his possession through the trial Court in accordance with law. H.A.K. Revision dismissed.