2022 PLP 174 (YLRN)

AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.

By means of instant Criminal Revision Application filed under sections 435 and 439-A, Cr.P.C. read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C. the applicant has impugned the order dated 16.04.2018 passed by learned Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge Karachi-East in Criminal Complaint No.27/2018, filed by the applicant under sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 against respondents 1 to 3, was dismissed. The applicant has made the following prayer :- a) Declare that the impugned order dated 16.04.2018 (Annexure 'A) passed in Criminal Complaint No. 27/2018, by the learned Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge Karachi (East), is illegal and of no legal effect and set aside the impugned order; b) Direct the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (East) to take cognizance under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, in Criminal Complaint No. 27 of 2018, issue warrants, for arrest of the Respondents Nos.1 to 3 and to decide the case in accordance with law; c) Grant such additional or alternative relief, as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper;

2. Briefly stated facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Revision Application are that applicant had filed an application under sections 3 and 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 stating there in that respondent No.1 is her real father while respondent No.2 is her real sister and she was residing at House No. 36-E Block-6 PECHS Karachi along with respondents. She had stated in the application that on 02.02.2018 she had received a call from a family friend namely Begum Anadil Rashidi that the respondent No.1 informed her that the applicant should have not return to the subject property and he shifted her belonging in a truck and she should have to inform the truck driver that where her belongings are to be delivered. On such information she went to the subject property, where respondents did not allow her to enter in the house, thereafter she approached the Police Station Firozabad but of no avail hence filed criminal complaint, as mentioned above.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant while reiterating the facts and grounds of the revision application, submitted that material particulars of offence in question have been given in the criminal complaint filed under sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act. 2005 but the trial court had failed to consider them and has erred in passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the applicant prayed that the impugned order is liable o to be set aside. To support his contentions he has relied upon the cases of Muhammad Bakhsh v. Additional Sessions Judge and others (2010 PCr.LJ 268), Iftikhar Ahmed v. Zulfiqar Ali and 3 others (PLD 2008 Lahore 59) and the case of Daanish Ahmed Mustafa v. Syed Sami Mustafa and 2 others (2017 YLR Note 390).

4. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 attacked upon the maintainability of instant Revision Application and stated that it does not show any cogent reasons that there is any illegality in the impugned order. He submitted that respondent No.1 who is real father of complainant is lawful owner of the property in question and the applicant has been disowned by her father, the respondent No.1, due to some family disputes. He further submitted that applicant was never owner of the subject property nor she has been illegally dispossessed from the property hence no offence under sections 3 and 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act is made out. He has placed reliance upon the cases reported as Mumtaz Hussain v. Dr. Nisar Khan and others (2010 SCMR 1254), Muhammad Bakhsh v. Additional Sessions Judge and others (2010 PCr.LJ 268), Abdul Karim Firdous and another v. The State and 7 others (2015 MLD 408), Shaikh Muhammad Naseem v. Mst. Farida Gul (2016 SCMR 1931), Muhammad Akram and 9 others v. Muhammad Yousuf and another (2009 SCMR 1066), Nazir Ahmed v. Asif and 4 others (PLD 2008 Karachi 94), Alamgir Khan v. Ghulam Rasul and others (2015 YLR 2512) and the case of Shahabuddin v. The State (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 725).

5. After adopting the arguments of the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, learned DPG submits that the order dated 16.04.2018, impugned herein, is well reasoned and speaking one. He further submitted that trial court after examining the entire record has passed a legal order which does not want any interference by this court.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The trial court in its order, impugned herein, has observed as follows:-- "I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the material placed on record, so also case-law cited at bar. As per contents of the instant criminal complaint the complainant claimed to be lawful occupier of property in question, having exclusive possession of one bedroom of House No.36-E, Block-6, PECHS Karachi. The respondent No.1 is real father of complainant and respondent No.2 is her real sister. As per report of inquiry officer the respondent No.1 is lawful owner of property in question and title documents were also got verified by the inquiry officer which were found to be in favour of respondent No. 1, and the complainant resided in the said property with the permission of respondent No.1 being his daughter. As per statement of respondent No.1 it reveals that he intended to sell out the property in question therefore he vacated the same for giving possession to purchaser. As per statement of respondent No.1, the complainant is his real daughter who is disobedient, therefore he disentitled her from his entire properties. However, the respondent No.1 and his another daughter namely Rehma Arif Abbasi/respondent No.2 have already surrendered their right over property i.e. House No.41K, Block 6, PECHS Karachi and transferred the same in favour of complainant while she has no concern with the property in question. As per inquiry report the respondent No.1 is lawful owner of the property in question and the complainant has also not denied the owner-ship of respondent No.

1. The complainant is neither shareholder in property in question nor she has any other interest therein. This clearly shows that complainant was residing in the property in question' with the permission of her father i.e. respondent No.1 as the respondent No.1 himself allowed the complainant to reside in the property in question being his daughter but later on some family dispute arose between the complainant, her father and sisters/respondents which is also reflected from the report submitted by the inquiry officer under section 5 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005."

7. After going through the record it is clear that the applicant has not given any material particulars or documentary evidence to show that she was owner of the subject property and she had been illegally dispossessed from said property. It was essential for the applicant to give all the material particulars and documentary proof with regard to act of illegal dispossession. In the case of Nazir Ahmed (supra) cited by learned counsel for the respondents it has been held that it is incumbent upon the person claiming lawful possession of property, to produce certain documents or evidence to prove possession as lawful possession over the property.

8. The disputes between the parties over possession or title of immoveable property have been there since time immemorial. There are various remedies available to a person who claims that he/she has been illegally dispossessed from immoveable property both on the civil and criminal side. A new class of persons have emerged in our society who are referred to as property grabbers or in local parlance as Qabza Group. Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 was enacted to take to task those persons who have antecedents of grabbing property. It is essential to differentiate between a case where a person is accused of a solitary act of illegal dispossession and where a person proceeded against is a professional land grabber and is notorious for grabbing property as and when an opportunity presents itself. In this case there is no iota of evidence to establish that respondents had any characteristics or antecedents of a land grabber. The spirit of Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 is to proceed against persons who are professional land grabbers or members of land Mafia and not against a person accused of a solitary act of illegal dispossession. Reference in this regard may be made to the cases reported as Mumtaz Hussain v. Dr. Nisar Khan and others (2010 SCMR 1254), Muhammud Bakhsh v. Additional Sessions Judge and others (2010 PCr.LJ 268) and Shaikh Muhammad Naseem v. Mst. Farida Gul (2016 SCMR 1931).

9. There is hardly any improbability or infirmity in the impugned order recorded by the learned trial court, which being based on sound and cogent reasons does not warrant any interference by this Court and is accordingly maintained. Resultantly this Criminal Revision Application having no merits for consideration is dismissed along with pending application. SA/R-29/Sindh Revision dismissed.