SCMR 2011

2011 SCMR 549 (PLP)

NASRULLAH and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Jail Petition No. 652 of 2010, decided on 10th January, 2011.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Sair Ali and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2011 SCMR 549 (PLP)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Muhammad Sair Ali and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ
Parties NASRULLAH and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 SCMR 549 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 SCMR 549 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Sair Ali and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 SCMR 549 (PLP) (NASRULLAH and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005)

Representation

  • Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment dated 30-11-2010 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Appeal No. 897 of 2010).

S.3 (2)

Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185 (3)-Illegal dispossession

Right of appeal

Accused were convicted and sentenced by Trial Court under S. 3(2) of Illegal Dispossession 'Act, 2005

Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether in absence of any provision for appeal or revision petition in Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, appeal of accused and revision of complainant were competent before High Court; whether complainant's complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was competent when matter pertaining to ownership and possession of relevant piece of land was already sub judice before civil court as well as before Evacuee Trust Property Board; whether in absence of any concrete proof available in that regard, accused could be treated as land grabbers/land mafia/ Qabza group for the purpose of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005; whether courts below had correctly appreciated and followed law declared by Full Bench of Lahore High Court which was affirmed by Supreme Court; whether one-time ploughing of a piece of land in absence of continued physical occupation thereof amounted to dispossession for the purposes of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005; whether or not failure on the part of complainant to produce two prosecution witnesses before Trial Court had weakened her case because according to complaint itself', it was one out of said two prosecution witnesses who informed complainant about incident in issue; and whether complainant had succeeded in proving her case against accused beyond reasonable doubt or not. Zahoor Ahmad and 5 others v. The State and 3 others PLD 2007 Lah. 231 and Bashir Ahmad v. Additional Sessions Judge Faisalabad PLD 2010 SC 661 ref. Ch. M. Zubair Farooq, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State.

Judgment & Decree

ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.

The petitioners were convicted for an offence under section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 vide judgment 31-3-2010 handed down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hafizabad and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years each and a fine of Rs. 5,000 each or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. The petitioners were further ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1,000 each to Mst. Safia Bibi complainant by way of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. An appeal filed by the petitioners against their convictions and sentences as well as a revision petition filed by Mst. Safia Bibi complainant seeking enhancement of the petitioners' sentences were subsequently dismissed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide consolidated judgment dated 30-11-2010. Hence, we present petition before this Court.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab and after going through the relevant record of the case appended with this petition leave to appeal is granted inter alia to consider the following questions: (i) Whether in the absence of any provision for an appeal or a revision petition in the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 the petitioners' appeal and the complainant's revision petitions were competent before the High Court? (ii) Whether the complainant's complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was competent when the matter pertaining to ownership and possession of the relevant piece of land was already sub judice before a civil court as well as before the Evacuee Trust Property Board? (iii) Whether in the absence of any concrete proof available in that regard the petitioners could be treated as land grabbers/land mafia/qabza group for the purposes of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005? (iv) Whether the learned courts below had correctly appreciated and followed the law declared by a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in the case of Zahoor Ahmad and 5 others v. The State and 3 others (PLD 2007 Lahore 231) which was affirmed by this Court in the case of Bashir Ahmad v. Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad (PLD 2010 SC 661)? (v) Whether a one-time ploughing of a piece of land in the absence of continued physical occupation thereof amounts to dispossession for the purposes of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005? (vi) Whether or not the failure on the part of the complainant to produce Taj Muhammad P.W. and Alam P.W. before the learned trial court had weakened her case because, according to the complaint itself, it was Taj Muhammad P.W. who had informed the complainant about the incident in issue? (vii) Whether, in the circumstances of this case, the complainant had succeeded in proving her case against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt or not?

3. As the sentences of imprisonment passed against the petitioners are relatively short and they have already served out a substantial part thereof by now, therefore, the Office is directed to fix the main appeal for regular hearing at an early date. M.H./N-3/SC Leave granted.