2013 PLP 1245 (MLD)

FAROOQ ALI CHANNA, J.

Through this criminal revision, the applicant has assailed order dated 25-9-2012, passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, dismissing the complaint No.25 of 2011, re: Muhammad Alam v. Muhammad Younis filed under sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred as Act, 2005).

2. Briefly the facts of the applicant's case are that, he is the lawful owner of land whereas the respondent Muhammad Younis has illegally occupied land 0-22 ghuntas out of survey No.208/4, and 0-18 ghuntas out of survey No.208/5, total area 1-00 acres, situated in deh Megarki, Taluka Pano Akil, District Sukkur; thus the has committed an offence punishable under section 3(2) of the Act, 2005. The applicant is also entitled to be put in possession of land in question. However, the trial Court while dismissing the complaint has observed that the respondent is in possession of land in question since 1984, whereas Act, 2005 was promulgated in the year 2005, having no retrospective effect.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant when confronted could not controvert the fact of possession of land in question with the respondent since 1984, however his version is that the respondent is in possession of (1-33) one acre and thirty three ghuntas instead of one acre. This fact of another 33 ghuntas of land in possession of the respondent came in the knowledge of applicant is the year 2011, through letter of Mukhtiarkar (R) Pano Akil dated 28-10-2011, produced in Complaint No.25 of 2011, therefore, per learned counsel for the applicant, the provisions of the Act, 2005 are attracted to the instant matter, however he has admitted that the respondent is in possession of entire 1-33 ghuntas of land since, 1984. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant bear no legal impact as the offence of occupying the property unlawfully as envisaged in section 3(1) of the Act, 2005 is punishable under this Act, 2005, if the said offence has taken place after the promulgation of Act, 2005. The offence, if any of the instant matter admittedly had taken place in the year, 1984, much prior to the promulgation of the Act, 2005, as such the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the complainant was not maintainable under the Act, 2005, having no retrospective effect. The learned counsel has not been able to point out illegality, perversity or nullity in the impugned order calling upon the interference by this Court.

4. For the reasons stated hereinabove, there appears no reason for this Court to interfere the impugned order, which seems to be a legal order passed in accordance with law, as such this revision being merit-less is dismissed along with listed applications in limine. MWA/M-151/K Application dismissed.