P L D 2008 Karachi 94 (PLP)

ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J.

This revision has been directed against the order dated 28-3-.2006 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-East whereby the direct complaint filed by the applicant under sections 3 and 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 was dismissed.

2. The fact giving rise the present revision application, in brief are that the applicant filed direct complaint in the Court of IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-East stating therein that he along with his family resided in the suit property bearing House No. 712/7 situated at Fatima Jinnah Colony, Karachi and the respondents have dispossessed him who belonged from Qabza Group, with the assistance of the police as such he prayed for restoration of his possession over the property in question. The learned trial court, after considering the facts and law involved in the complaint, dismissed the said complaint, hence the present application.

3. I have heard Mr. Mehboob Elahi, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Muhammad Arif Latif, Advocate for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that the trial Court did not consider the status of the applicant over the property in dispute, who is residing there since last 40 years and obtained Sui-gas connection, electric and water connections and his eviction from the property in question at the hands of respondents was illegal, but the learned trial Court without considering the said aspect of the matter, dismissed the direct complaint, as such the order passed the learned trial Court may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back for fresh adjudication on merits.

5. Mr. Muhammad Arif Latif, Advocate for the respondents Nos.1 to 4 has vehemently controverted the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and has contended that the applicant has no legal status to maintain the direct complaint and the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the said complaint.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel of the parties and gone through the material available before me.

7. The applicant filed a direct complaint stating therein that he is residing in House No.712/7 situated Fatima Jinnah Colony, Karachi but he has not produced any title documents showing his ownership over the property in question. The Fatima Jinnah Colony is admittedly a Katchi Abadi and the applicant himself has occupied the land as, a land grabber. The land grabbers have no right to approach the courts to protect their rights. The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 has been promulgated by the Government to protect the lawful possession of lawful owners of the property and possession of lawful occupier and against illegal dispossession at the hands of land grabbers and land Mafia. The pre-amble of Illegal Dispossession Act, is quoted hereinbelow:-- "Whereas it is expedient to protect the lawful owners and occupiers of immovable properties from their illegal or forcible dispossession therefrom by the property grabbers"

8. The term "occupier" has been defined under subsection (c) to section 2, ibid, which means the person who is in lawful possession of a property. The definition contained in subsection 2, ibid, shows that the occupation of the person who is claiming the said possession must be in lawful possession over the said property. For the purpose of proving the said fact it is incumbent upon the person claiming the lawful possession of the property, to produce certain documents or evidence to prove his possession as lawful possession over the property. Similarly the terms "owner" has also been defined in subsection (d) of section 2 of the Act 2005 which also means the person who actually owns the property at the time of dispossession otherwise than through a process of law. The said definition again shows that the owner who is claiming the said property C must prove his status as lawful, in case, he has been dispossessed from the property in question.

9. In the present case, on repeated queries from the learned counsel for the applicant, no evidence or documents have been shown or produced to show that the present applicant was either lawful owner or occupier of the property in question within the meaning of sub-sections (c) and (d) to section 2 of Act 2005.

10. In absence of any documents showing the title of the applicant or his occupation as lawful owner of the property in question, his claim being lawful occupier of the property in question could not be acceded. The learned trial Court rightly analyzed the legal proposition involved in the case and dismissed the direct complaint and I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Court. Revision Application has no merits and is hereby dismissed. M.H./N-49/K Revision dismissed.