Illegal dispossession

Appeal had been filed by the accused against the impugned direction of the Trial Court, whereby they were ordered to vacate the possession of the house within a period of 15 days

Held: Question before the Court was as to whether, in the given facts and circumstances of the case especially in light of the acquittal of the accused due to failure of the complainant to establish the alleged dispossession in the required mode, manner or standard of evidence, the Trial Court was justified in directing that possession of the house be restored to the complainant

Official of Police Post had stated that both parties had produced documents regarding ownership of the house and it was specifically reported that Mst. "S", wife of accused "AA" had claimed that two rooms of the disputed house were given to her as dower

Said portion was in their possession and that the utility bills for electricity and gas were in the name of "AA"

In her complaint, the complainant also alleged that, during proceedings under S.145 Cr.P.C, the accused side produced forged, bogus and fictitious documents to falsely claim ownership

Parties were closely related, the complainant and the accused "AA" were real sister and brother

Prima facie, the complainant had claimed ownership of the disputed house on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 07.02.1991, showing its purchase from one "Z" Shah for a consideration of Rs.60,000/-, however, there also existed a document dated 03.07.2004, whereby the complainant allegedly sold the said property to her mother

In addition to that, other documents, produced by the parties in support of their respective claims to ownership, were disputed and controverted

Such facts gave rise to a question of joint ownership, which could not be conclusively determined in these criminal proceedings

Determination of ownership did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, as such matter laid solely within the domain of the Civil Court, whereby all the questions qua title of the house might be agitated

Even otherwise, in cases such as the present one, for the restoration of possession under S.8 of the Act of 2005, the conviction of the accused under subsection(2) or subsection(3) of the Act was a sine qua non and without conviction of the accused i.e., alleged dispossessor or illegal occupants, the restoration of possession could not be ordered

Thus, the Trial Court, while acquitting the accused of the charges, had erred in directing the restoration of possession of the property without properly evaluating the evidence on record in juxtaposition, hence, to that extent, the impugned findings were not sustainable in the eyes of law

Appeal was allowed, accordingly.

Petitioner was aggrieved of Trial Court's order whereby his complaint filed under S. 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was dismissed

Petitioner alleged that she was owner in possession of the disputed house on the basis of a sale deed; that after the death of her mother, she along with her children resided in the said house for 4/5 months and upon leaving the same for another city, she locked the house but when she returned she found that accused had broken the locks and illegally occupied two rooms two days prior

Record showed that neither any eye-witness of the alleged act of dispossession was produced before the Court by the complainant nor any other strong circumstantial evidence was available on record to establish the allegation levelled against the accused in the complaint

For proving the offence of illegal dispossession under S.3(3) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, it was the legal duty of the complainant to bring on record independent and reliable evidence demonstrating that the accused had forcibly taken possession by dispossessing the complainant from the property

Complainant was also required to mention all material particulars regarding the alleged act of illegal dispossession in her complaint, however, the evidence of the requisite standard was obviously missing in the case

Prior to filing the instant complaint, the complainant had already filed a complaint under S.145, Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner on 23.11.2022 with directions to approach the Civil Court for determination of the question of title

Said order was also upheld by the Sessions Judge and thereafter, the complainant had filed the present complaint under the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which, in the given circumstances, amounted to double jeopardy irrespective of the observation of the Sessions Judge because the complainant had failed to provide any legal justification for approaching the wrong forum

Therefore, the accused were rightly acquitted of the charges by the Trial Court through impugned judgment

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Two forums of different jurisdiction concluded against the petitioner i.e. complaint under provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 which was dismissed followed by dismissal of suit on the original side along with first appeal and second appeal accordingly

In the present petition the petitioner attempted to take refuge under the purported misapplication of the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. by the courts below by stating that the trial court failed to record evidence of the petitioner

Held: The judgment of the trial court was passed after dismissal of the adjournment application

The application was dismissed after recording reasons that on the previous date (previous to the dismissal of last adjournment application) the petitioner also moved an adjournment application which was allowed as a last chance, despite availing earlier opportunities

On the fateful date neither the petitioner being plaintiff in the suit nor his counsel appeared but an adjournment application was sent stating that the petitioner was suffering from fever

On the same day after dismissal of the adjournment application the judgment was announced and the suit of the petitioner was dismissed being devoid of any evidence

The petitioner being aggrieved of decision under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. preferred an appeal but did not take ground that under the given circumstances Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. was misapplied

Scope of section 100, C.P.C. and that too against the concurrent findings of the original civil court and the first appellate court was limited

Supreme Court did not interfere in the concurrent findings of three courts below who had recorded the non-serious attitude of the petitioner in recording the evidence on a number of occasions, particularly when the petitioner had failed to point out if he had categorically taken this ground before the two appellate forums below

Petition was dismissed, in circumstances, and leave was refused.

Co-owner is deemed to be in constructive possession of every inch of joint holding unless a formal partition has been effected

Jurisprudence on co-ownership consistently affirms that one co-owner cannot allege dispossession at the hands of another without establishing exclusive possession through partition proceedings

Provision of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is not confined to cases involving land grabbers or Qabza Mafia but extends to any person who has been illegally dispossessed from immovable property, however it is applicable only where there is clear evidence of unlawful dispossession

In cases where parties are co-owners, question of forcible dispossession does not arise unless partition proceedings have concluded and exclusive ownership is established

Acquitted accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence

Appellate Court should exercise restraint in overturning an acquittal unless the judgment is manifestly perverse, arbitrary, or suffers from a glaring misreading or non-reading of material evidence

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment of acquittal passed in faovur of accused

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Complainant was aggrieved of Trial Court's order whereby his complaint filed under S. 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was dismissed and accused were acquitted

Validity

Complainant alleged that he was owner in possession over his inherited property; that accused persons/ respondents dispossessed him, occupied the said property and cut-downed crops planted on the same

Record showed that complainant in his cross-examination had stated that the suit property was their inherited property, however, in his statement before Investigating Officer he had come up with another claim that the disputed land was purchased by him from one "AK"

In order to clarify that ambiguity about ownership of very disputed land, during the course of trial, appellant/complainant could not produce any documentary evidence in terms as to whether the disputed land had become ownership of appellant on account of being his inherited property or it had fallen into their ownership in view of any sale or deed

Likewise, Muharir deposed in his cross-examination deposed that during trial complainant could not produce any ownership document qua purchase of property in dispute

Same was the case with testimony of Investigating Officer, who deposed in his cross-examination that complainant had not produced any document in the form of deed in respect of ownership of the property in dispute

Another alleged eye-witness of occurrence deposed in his cross-examination that he did not remember as to whether at the time of recording of his statement any other persons were present with him or not

In the same breath, said witness also deposed that at the time of harvesting of crops he was present in his house and as soon as he came out therefrom, he had seen accused cutting crops

Said witness further clarified that he neither informed complainant in respect of cutting of crops by one of the nominated accused nor any other person of locality apprised him, in that regard

Similarly, eye-witness deposed in his Court statement that both the parties were cousin inter-se and he had no knowledge about ownership and possession of both the parties

Likewise, it was also claimed by complainant that when nominated accused had entered into his landed property they had allegedly cut-downed barely crops cultivated on the same and said harvested crops had subsequently been taken by accused to their houses without his permission

However, during the course of investigation neither cut-downed pieces of crops had been taken into possession by Investigating Officer in order to verify and substantiate claim of appellant nor any incriminating recovery in that regard had been made from personal possession of accused/respondents nor on their pointation, therefore, that alleged claim of complainant qua harvesting/cutting of barely crops was shrouded in mystery

Even otherwise, alleged testimonies of both the eye-witnesses would be of no help to complainant/prosecution because they had not uttered a single word in respect of dispossession of complainant from the property in dispute

In view of the depositions of star witnesses of appellant/complainant including his own testimony before the Court, it was crystal clear that neither appellant could produce any documentary evidence about ownership of property in dispute wherefrom he was allegedly dispossessed nor his witnesses could utter a single word in their testimonies before Court that in their presence the alleged offence of dispossession of appellant took place

Thus, the whole allegation of appellant/complainant in terms that he had been dispossessed from property in dispute was standing in vacuum

Circumstances established that the case of appellant/complainant was a case of no evidence

Appeal being bereft of any merits was dismissed, in limine.

Complainant was aggrieved of Trial Court's order whereby his complaint filed under S. 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was dismissed and accused were acquitted

Accused was acquitted in absentia

Validity

Section 540-A, Cr.P.C., mandated and allowed a Court to dispense with personal attendance of an accused if he was represented by a pleader and there were multiple accused, or if the accused was incapable of appearing before Court

In view of said provisions of law, Trial Court was justified to make an order in respect of acquittal of said accused/respondent in absentia, when otherwise, on the available record, no prima facie case was made-out against him, even if he would have been forced to face a full-fledged trial before Trial Court

More particularly, when on the same set of evidence, other nominated accused/respondents had earned a honourable acquittal during trial proceedings

Appeal being bereft of any merits was dismissed, in limine.

In the present case, charge was framed on 13.05.2024 whereas order for accepting the petition filed by complainant under S.7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was allowed while application filed by accused under S.265-K Cr.P.C, was dismissed on 19.03.2024, prior to the commencement of the trial of the case instituted upon the private complaint

Trial Court passed the impugned order dated 19.03.2024 issuing a direction under S.7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, to the S.H.O. concerned before the commencement of the trial, therefore, the same was not tenable

Trial had not commenced, therefore, no order could have been passed by the trial Court under S.7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

In view of the matter, petition was allowed to the extent that the order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Trial Court, whereby a direction was issued to the S.H.O. concerned to proceed under S.7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was set-aside, however, as charge had now been framed, therefore, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order on the application filed by complainant under S.7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which application shall be deemed pending for the purpose of making any subsequent order

Petitioners shall be at liberty to file another application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C., before the Trial Court seeking their acquittal, which application shall be decided on the basis of the evidentiary material available on the record.

Petitioner was aggrieved of Trial Court's order whereby his complaint filed under S. 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was dismissed

Validity

Petitioner alleged that after a legal partition of the joint khata, he along with his family members was in possession of a particular land being its owners; that respondents armed with hatchets, clubs and firearm weapons, dispossessed the petitioner from land measuring 08 Kanals 18 Marlas situated in Killa Nos. 21 and 3 Kanals and 09 Marlas in Killa No. 22, total land measuring 12 Kanals 07 Marlas

During the occurrence, both the parties sustained injuries, upon which, respondent No. 2 lodged FIR under Ss. 337-A(iv), 324, 337-L(2), 337-F(vi), 354, 337-A(i), 148 & 149, P.P.C, against the petitioner and seven others, wherein, cross-version of the petitioner's side was also recorded

Petitioner's party was arrested in said FIR and respondent party destroyed their millet and maize crops and illegally took over the possession of 12 Kanals and 07 Marlas land

Held, that on receiving complaint, Court was bound to ascertain the truth and falsehood of the allegation, through inquiry and/or investigation

Inquiry and investigation were not mutually exclusive, Court could resort to both proceedings one after another

Investigation process provide both the complainant and respondents with an opportunity to be heard as part of the process of determining the validity of an allegation

This generally triggers rights of due process under the law on how to address allegations

Thus, that is the reason an investigation is necessary or essential because it is conducted for collection of evidence and parties have full opportunity to produce every sort of material legally admissible or not

In such way issues are narrowed down by investigator with an opinion for and against the commission of offence and Court is loaded with tangible evidence as well

In the present case, Court had neither conducted the inquiry properly nor ordered for investigation, so much so on the day of dispossession FIR was also registered with corresponding cross version but Court did not even bother to summon the police record despite the fact that motive of the occurrence was dispossession

Court had also not attended the fact that possession was handed over to the complainant through warrant of possession issued by a competent authority

Petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned order, with the direction that complaint filed by the petitioner shall be deemed pending and Trial Court after feeling the necessity either of investigation or inquiry, if any, shall proceed with the complaint in due course of law as delineated above.

Applicant installed a petrol pump after getting license from the respondents but they were dispossessed from the premises by the respondents illegally who began dismantling the petrol pump accessories

Applicant filed a complaint but the Trial Court dismissed the same

Validity

In the present matter, through a lease agreement dated May 4, 2001, the commercial plot was transferred to the complainant/applicant by the then Management of Pakistan State Oil Company (P.S.O.)

Complainant/ applicant lawfully took possession and managed the premises as a bona fide and legally recognized dealer in accordance with the terms of a license agreement

Complainant was engaged in the business of selling petroleum products and had also installed a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) station on the subject plot

Applicant remained in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the license agreement and did not commit any breach thereof

However, the access to the petrol pump from the main entrance roads was obstructed by law enforcement agencies, thereby preventing customers from reaching the premises

As a result, the complainant filed a constitutional petition

Upon adjudication, High Court was pleased to direct the removal of all obstructions and blockages on the road, further directing the relevant authorities that the applicant's petrol pump shall not be removed without due processes of law

Applicant, after complying with all requisite legal formalities and obtaining the necessary approval from the Sindh Building Control Authority, subsequently executed a license agreement with Pakistan State Oil Company

Pursuant to the said agreement, the applicant lawfully installed a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) filling station on a portion of the subject plot, making a substantial investment of Rs. 60.0 million for its installation

During the course of operating the petrol pump and CNG station, the respondents exerted undue oral pressure on the applicant, coercing the termination of the agreement, vacating the premises and surrendering physical possession of the petrol pump and CNG installation

Such actions were driven by mala fide intent and dishonest motives to transfer possession to their associates

However, the applicant consistently refused to terminate the license agreement, as the business was being operated in full compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in both license agreements

Furthermore, respondents persistently created unnecessary obstacles in the lawful operation of the business and sought to interfere with the applicant's physical possession of the premises

In response, the complainant instituted constitutional petition, and upon adjudication, the petition was disposed of with directions to the applicant to file a civil suit against Pakistan State Oil Company, while the Staff Welfare Organization was specifically instructed not to take any adverse action against the applicant

On 12.10.2022, at approximately 08:00 PM, the respondents, accompanied by 20 to 30 unknown armed guards, unlawfully and forcibly attacked the petrol pump situated on the plot and illegally dispossessed the applicant and his staff from the premises

During the course of the forcible dispossession, the respondents began dismantling the petrol pump's accessories and engaged in cutting operations using welding equipment, despite being expressly informed that the petrol and diesel storage tanks contained over 1,300 liters of petrol and 7,000 liters of diesel, and that the gas storage cylinders were filled with CNG

Reckless actions of the respondents created a grave and imminent risk of a catastrophic explosion, yet they disregarded these warnings instead issued threats, demanding immediate vacation of the premises, failing which they threatened to use firearms

Fearing serious harm and potential loss of life, the applicant and his staff refrained from resisting

Consequently, the applicant was forcibly and unlawfully dispossessed of the petrol pump and CNG station, which was subsequently occupied by the respondents and concealed with cloth tents

Clause 20 of the agreement explicitly provided that in the event of any question, dispute, difference, or objection arising in connection with or related to the agreement including the rights, duties, and liabilities of either party, such matters shall be referred for arbitration to the company's General Manager Reseller or his nominee, or to such other officer of the company as might be designated

Decision rendered by the designated arbitrator shall be final and binding on both parties

Similarly, Art.17 of the CNG License Agreement contained an identical arbitration clause, stipulating that any dispute shall be resolved through arbitration

Additionally, it had been clearly stipulated that arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940, or any subsequent amendment thereof, as applicable at the relevant time

Despite those explicit contractual provisions mandating arbitration, the respondents willfully disregarded the law, acted in excess of their authority and unilaterally took the law into their own hands

Instead of adhering to due legal process, respondents assumed the roles of both judge and jury in their own cause and forcibly dispossessed the applicant/complainant from the fuel station in a clear violation of legal principles and due process

Furthermore, the fundamental right to property, as enshrined in the Constitution, had been safeguarded to ensure that no individual was deprived of their property without legal justification and without following the proper legal procedures

Criminal miscellaneous application was allowed in circumstances and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to rehear the respective parties and render the order afresh.

Application was filed by the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) contending that the respondent/proposed accused was an officer in PAF, therefore, he be handed over to PAF as he was to be tried by the Military Courts instead of Courts of ordinary jurisdiction

Such application was dismissed by the Trial Court

Validity

It was evident that Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005,was a special law and S. 4 thereof contained non-obstante clause

Relevant provisions of PAF Act, 1953, envisaged that S. 123 of the said Act is not applicable to the special laws

In that context, reference could be made to the provision of Ss. 71, 4(xi), 4(xvi) & 123 of PAF Act, 1953

In view of this legal position, the provisions of Ss. 3 & 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, shall prevail over the provision of S. 123 of PAF Act, 1953

Applicant had mainly stressed their prayer on the basis of decision of Cabinet Division as reflected in the Letter No. 556/ Rule-19/2024/926 dated 07-11-2024

Prior to such decision of Cabinet Division, applications had been moved by the PAF for transferring the trial to Military/Court Martial which were dismissed and the dismissal orders were not challenged before the higher forum

When the trial was in progress and the complainant and one witness had been examined before the Trial Court, the applicant/PAF came with such plea that in view of the decision of the Cabinet Division, the Trial Court had no jurisdiction and that the trial of the accused was to be conducted by the Military/Martial Court

In fact, Federal Cabinet decision's letter No.556/ Rule-19/2024/926 dated 07-11-2024 was based on the provisions of S. 124 (2) of PAF Act 1953, and R. 6(2) of Criminal Procedure (Military Offender) Rules, 1970, which were not attracted in the present case as this case was governed under the provision of S. 123 of PAF Act, 1953, read with Rr. 2 & 3 of Criminal Procedure (Military Offender) Rules,1970

Moreover, in the said letter no reference had been made to the judicial order passed by the Trial Court on 01-11-2021 in which the question of jurisdiction had already been decided and the said order was not challenged before high forum, as such the same attained finality

Moreover, said letter regarding decision of Cabinet Division was quite silent with regard to judicial orders, as such the same had no value in the eye of law

In the circumstances, the prayer sought by PAF for handing over the case/trial of accused to Military/Martial-Court would be violative of the principle "nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa" (no one should be judge of his own cause)

Petition filed by PAF was dismissed, in circumstances.

Trial Court allowed application for handing over the interim possession under S. 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 to the complainant

Validity

From perusal of S. 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, it appeared that the Court dealing with the application under S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was authorized and had ample power to grant 'interim relief' under the said provision of law during the pendency of main application in favour of owner/occupier if during trial the Court was satisfied that the accused was prima facie not in 'lawful possession'

While dealing the matter, the conduct of the applicant/accused was also to be taken into consideration

Complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was filed by complainant/respondent in the year 2018

Vide order dated 14.07.2018, inquiry report was called and after hearing the parties and in view of the inquiry report, Trial Court took cognizance and issued bailable warrants against the proposed accused to appear before the Court and furnish solvent surety of Rs.1 lac.

Letter was also sent by the Court on 28.08.2018 to J.A.G. branch of Pakistan Air Force Headquarter, in respect of the subject case, but the same was not responded to by the J.A.G. branch P.A.F. Headquarter

However, despite that applicant/accused never put his appearance before the Court, nor was represented by any counsel

Instead of appearing before the Trial Court and proceeding with the trial, the applicant/accused moved an application under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C., for his premature acquittal through his advocate which was dismissed and the said order was assailed before the High Court by means of filing a Cr. Misc. Application, which was also dismissed

In the said judgment too the High Court highlighted the conduct of the applicant/accused

Trial Court had also highlighted the unwarranted conduct of the applicant/accused in pursuing the case

In fact, the complaint under S. 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was filed in the year 2018 and about 06 years had passed, however, the matter could not be disposed of on account of unwarranted conduct and attitude of the proposed accused

Record showed that after taking cognizance, Trial Court repeatedly issued summons to the accused but he deliberately failed to appear

When the proceedings under Ss. 87 & 88, Cr.P.C., were initiated against the accused then he appeared and surrendered before the Trial Court

Charge was framed on 30.11.2022 and the evidence of complainant and one witness had been recorded

From perusal of the record it also appeared that all the registered documents relating to the subject property had been verified in favour of the complainant

Verification reports depicted that all such documents produced by the complainant were genuine and had been issued from the concerned office/department

Provisions of S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, could be pressed, if during the Trial Court was satisfied that the accused/respondents were in unlawful possession

Petition filed by accused was dismissed, in circumstances.

During the pendency of the instant appeal, both parties had compromised the matter outside court, and in that regard, they had filed joint applications under Ss. 345(5) & 345(6), Cr.P.C, along with supporting affidavit of complainant

Complainant submitted that possession of the property in dispute had been handed over to him; therefore, he, with the core of his heart, had forgiven the appellant; hence, they had filed compromise applications jointly and he did not want to prosecute the appellant anymore and he had no objection if the applications were allowed and the appellant was acquitted of the charge

Validity

Appellant-accused was convicted under subsection (2) of S.3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, did not specify whether the alleged offence was compoundable or non-compoundable

Section 9 of the Act mandated that, except where otherwise specified, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, shall govern all proceedings conducted under the Act

Therefore, a compromise effectuated under the Act must be regarded as a compromise under S.345 of the Criminal Procedure Code

Moreover, it is recognized that parties to a dispute may reach an amicable resolution, signifying their commitment to co-exist in peace, tranquility, and harmony

Such principle reflected the legal philosophy that encouraged the settlement of disputes through mutual agreement, thereby promoting social stability and reducing the burden on the judicial system

In relation to the non-compoundability of specific offences, it was critical to interpret such provisions within the context of individual cases

Legal precedents suggested that a beneficial interpretation of statutory provisions should be favoured, allowing Courts to consider in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case rather than applying a rigid interpretation

Such approach aligned with the broader legal philosophy of justice and equity, emphasizing that the spirit of the law should guide judicial outcome to foster reconciliation and uphold community harmony

In light of the compromise reached between the parties outside the Court, the complainant's decision not to pursue the case and his lack of objection to the appellant's acquittal, it was not appropriate to uphold the conviction

Therefore, in order to maintain cordial relations between the parties in future, the application under S.345(5), Cr.P.C., was granted; resultantly, the application under S.345(6), Cr.P.C. was accepted

Appellant was acquitted of the charge by way of compromise.

No doubt the legislature has not provided a specific section/provision under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, for compounding the offense

However, S.9 of the Act ibid provided that unless provided in the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the provisions contained under the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, shall apply to all the proceedings under the Act ibid

Therefore, the compromise effected between the parties under the Act ibid should be treated as the compromise within the meaning of S.345, Cr.P.C.

Non-compoundability of the particular Section of the law should not be read in isolation but it should be read in the background of each criminal case and beneficial interpretation should be given to it

When the parties had earnestly decided to live in peace and tranquility by forgetting and giving up all their past transactions then for the sake of their welfare in general and betterment of socio-economic conditions of the society as a whole in particular, it would be prime need of time to acquit the accused from the charge upon the basis of compromise despite the non-compoundability of the S.3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

Joint application for compromise between parties had been filed duly supported with affidavits of accused persons as well as complainant

Counsel for the complainant had also made a statement duly signed by the complainant to the effect that possession of the disputed property had been handed over to complainant, therefore he had no objection to acquittal of the accused persons

Legal question was that said offence was not compoundable nor the legislature had defined it in its Preamble whether it should be treated as compoundable or non-compoundable

However, if the parties, particularly the aggrieved person/victim and both the parties i.e. the complainant and appellant/convict, had compromised against themselves then it should be treated as compromised, though under the statute it had not been defined whether it was compoundable or non-compoundable

In the present case, keeping in view the compromise that had taken place between the parties outside the Court, it was not proper to hold the conviction, especially when the complainant did not want to pursue his case anymore and had raised his no objection for acquittal of the appellants

In the circumstances and in view of the compromise effected between the parties, the appeal was disposed of

Appellants were acquitted of all the charges.

Petitioner/accused was aggrieved of criminal proceedings initiated by respondent/ complainant alleging his illegal dispossession by force

Plea raised by petitioner/accused was that provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 were restricted to Qabza Mafia or land grabbers

Validity

Any person who is lawful owner or lawful occupier of property and has been illegally dispossessed, can bring a complaint under the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

In order to make out a case under sections 3 and 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, complainant has to prima facie establish before Court that he is lawful owner or was occupier of subject property and accused had entered into or upon the property without having any lawful authority, which act was done by accused with the intention to dispossess or to grab or to control or to occupy the property

Applicability of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is not restricted to Qabza Mafia or land grabbers

Scope of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is wide enough to cover any illegal occupant and is not limited to mafia or Qabza Groups only

Supreme Court declined to interfere in orders passed by Courts below

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Provision of Art. 13 (a) of the Constitution, S.403 of Cr.P.C. and S.26 of General Clauses Act, 1897, were not attracted as rule of dual jeopardy could only be applied in the case of same occurrence in between same parties

In the present case there were two occurrence which were different having interval of more than two decades

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Trial Court

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner/complainant had averred in his complaint that he was owner in possession of the disputed land along with his son on which the accused/respondent had made illegal construction in his absence

Trial Court observed that the stance of accused was unambiguous that he had no concern with khasra Nos. 1276 and 1277 and that his cousins were owners in khasra No. 1277 in which they had raised construction which had been attributed by the complainant to him

Petitioner, as per statement, had purchased the land through registered deed of 1980 with specification of the boundaries

Trial Court had held that the spot inspection was the sole option to determine as to whether or not the alleged construction had been made within the boundaries mentioned in the deed relied upon by the complaint

Perusal of S. 539-B, Cr.P.C., showed that the power of spot inspection could not be delegated by Trial Court to any other officer even to a subordinate Judicial Officer rather the exercise shall be made by the Presiding Officer itself

Power under S. 539-B, Cr.P.C., could not be a substitute for collection of evidence nor the Court could assume the status of an Investigating Officer

Section 539-B, Cr.P.C., envisaged that in case spot inspection was deemed necessary, the Trial Court would without unnecessary delay record a memorandum of any relevant facts observed at such inspection

Such object could not be achieved through appointment of a local commission because the report submitted by a local commission could not be equated with the memorandum mentioned in S. 539-B(1), Cr.P.C.

Trial Court instead of deciding the case in the light of evidence produced by petitioner had committed an irregularity by appointing a local commission for the purpose of collecting evidence, therefore, the impugned order could not legally sustain

Thus, petition was allowed by setting aside impugned order and the Trial Court was directed to decide the case in the light of evidence brought on record during inquiry and trial.

Primary aspect of the case, which seemed to have swayed the Trial Court in ordering that the property be taken away from Mr. "A" and handed over to Mr. "I", was that in a preliminary inquiry, the documents of title of the property in question were with Mr. "I" and not with Mr. "A"

Documents of the property on which Mr. "A" relied were fake

Trial Courts seized of criminal complaints under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, often made a slight overreach and also decided issues regarding ownership of the property, which was not the correct approach

Only the Civil Courts of competent jurisdiction could make such findings

Such issue required evidence to be recorded by a Civil Court before such declarations or pronouncements of a conclusive nature were made

Prima facie ownership of the property might only be one of the factors considered by a Criminal Court when adjudicating a S.7 application under the Act of 2005

Primary finding had to be that who was in possession when dispossession was alleged and on what basis the possessor claimed his possession

Person's possession of a property, when he was not the owner, might not always be illegal

In the current case, prima facie, it seemed that Mr. "I" based his property ownership on an agreement to sell

If that was found correct, the question arose about how an agreement to sell established title

Allotment Letter of the property showed that it was allotted to "SJ" with the condition that selling the property was prohibited

How did "SJ" agree to sell the same to Mr. "I"

How did the Lyari Expressway Resettlement Project issued a Transfer Order in the name of Mr. "I" when, apart from the restriction on sale, there was no document on record to show that the sale transaction between "SJ" and Mr. "I" ever culminated

On the contrary, Mr. "A" had documents to show prima facie that the property's electricity, water and gas connections were in his wife's name and that he had been paying the utility charges since 2009

Mr. "I" had not denied that

Given the above, prima facie, it seemed that Mr. "A" had been in possession of the property since 2009, therefore, it would be unsafe to order him to be evicted arbitrarily

An opportunity should be given to both Mr. "I" and Mr. "A" to show at trial how they claimed to be in possession of the property

Impugned order was, therefore, set aside

High Court observed that parties should wait till the conclusion of the trial so that the Trial Court decided their respective claims of being in lawful possession after it had an opportunity to review the evidence produced.

Complainant filed a complaint under Ss 3, 4 & 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 on 17.08.2020, against the petitioner and his son, which was admitted for regular hearing

Trial Court vide order dated 30.10.2021, issued summons against the petitioner for facing trial in the complaint

Petitioner challenged the order dated 30.10.2021 against his summoning in first revision petition filed under S.439, Cr.P.C., read with S.561-A, Cr.P.C., on 10.11.2021 before High Court and also sought quashing of complaint filed by respondent

Revision petition was dismissed as having been withdrawn on 25.01.2022

After dismissal of first revision petition, proceedings before Trial Court continued whereby Trial Court accepted the petition filed under S.7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, filed by respondent vide order dated 29.04.2023

Petitioner filed second revision petition on 02.05.2023, challenging the order dated 29.04.2023, on the same grounds as taken in the first revision petition but surprisingly the petitioner did not disclose filing of first revision petition and its dismissal having been withdrawn in the second revision petition

Vide order dated 19.06.2023, second revision petition was allowed and orders dated 30.10.2021 and 29.04.2023, passed by Trial Court, were set aside, possession of the petitioner was restored and Trial Court was directed to decide the complaint in all respects within a period of six (06) months

On 07.11.2023, the petitioner filed third revision petition, challenging the order dated 06.10.2023, passed by Trial Court, whereby he was summoned as an accused to face the trial, quashing of complaint being not maintainable was also prayed/sought in said petition, which was also dismissed as withdrawn by High Court on 20.11.2023

Though it was a third revision petition but petitioner mentioned in the certificate given at the bottom of the petition that it was second revision petition being filed before the High Court

In the third revision petition the same eight grounds which were taken in the first revision petition were mentioned

Now this is the fourth revision petition filed in this Court challenging the order dated 15.01.2024, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, whereby application under S.265-D, Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed

Fourth revision petition had also been filed on the basis of same eight grounds which were taken in all the previous three revision petitions

Said conduct of the petitioner clearly showed that he was deliberately delaying the matter on one pretext or the other and was avoiding to face the trial

Scope of acquittal under Ss.265-K, 249-A & 265-D, Cr.P.C, was very limited

Criminal revision petition was dismissed being meritless.

If possession was not established to be taken by the accused person by using force or deceiving the complainant then a case of illegal dispossession was surely not made out.

Accused were charged for occupying the agricultural land of complainant illegally on the point of weapons and issuing murderous threats

Record showed that complainant mentioned in his complaint that the accused had built their house in the land after putting a hedge of thorny bushes

When the complainant entered into the witness-box, he stated that another person was the accused who had built his house on his land

Complainant in his examination-in-chief stated that the accused persons had cut down acacia trees available in the land but the memo of complaint was silent regarding any such allegation

Prosecution witness in his deposition claimed that his land was adjacent to the land of the complainant but he had not produced any proof of his ownership, which created doubt regarding such claim specially when it had come on the record that he was not residing in a nearby village but his village was situated about 15 kilometres away

Complainant in the memo of complaint while describing his land had not shown that the said witness's land was adjacent to his land

Prosecution witness had admitted in cross-examination that he was cousin of the complainant and he admitted that in the alleged incident of dispossession none from the complainant side including himself received injuries while at the time of the incident the accused persons were armed with batons and hatchets

Prosecution witness, who was an employee of complainant could not be termed as an independent witness

Such contradictions and convincing material had persuaded the Trial Court to disbelieve the complainant's case regarding dispossession up to the extent of the other accused

Trial Court conceived that only the accused was responsible for the alleged offence

Reason for that persuasion was the statement of the accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C., in which he claimed that he had purchased the land from the complainant and had possession of the same on account of the alleged sale agreement in which allegedly the complainant entered with him

Circumstances established that the case of illegal dispossession by the accused persons had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt through some credible evidence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged for occupying the agricultural land of complainant illegally on the point of weapons and issuing murderous threats

Record showed that one of the prosecution witnesses was relative of complainant and the other was his employee and might be advisedly he had not produced any other independent witness of the locality during trial

Memo of the complaint showed the land of complainant was situated in a rural area

None of the persons from the adjoining village were asked to appear in the Trial Court as a witness of the alleged incident

Claim of the applicant was that he had sold out a portion of his said land to someone but he was not produced as a witness of the alleged incident of illegal dispossession

Complainant, in cross-examination had admitted that the nominated accused were physically disabled persons

Complainant also claimed in his complaint that the accused persons were armed with weapons but such weapons had not been disclosed or described in the memo of complaint

Even at the time of recording his deposition, the complainant remained tight-lips regarding the nature of those deadly weapons

Circumstances established that the case of illegal dispossession by the accused persons had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt through some credible evidence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged for occupying the agricultural land of complainant illegally on the point of weapons and issuing murderous threats

Allegedly, the nominated accused persons while armed with deadly weapons illegally occupied the land of complainant and issued threats of murder while two accused built their house/hut within the land

Complaint filed by the respondent/ complainant indicated that earlier a complaint was filed under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 but the same was withdrawn as the name of one of the accused was incorrectly mentioned, as such after correction, the fresh complaint was filed

Complainant did not file the memo of the previous complaint nor the order of the previous complaint

Even it was not disclosed whether, at the time of withdrawing the previous complaint, the Trial Court had taken cognizance or not and permission was sought for filing a fresh complaint after the withdrawal of the earlier one

Although a person so dispossessed did not need to claim title over the property, however, he had to establish that he had possession of the property but that point was not properly addressed during the trial

Circumstances established that the case of illegal dispossession by the accused persons had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt through some credible evidence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

To attract provisions of S. 3 Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, Trial Court was required to examine as to whether property was immovable property; secondly that the person was owner of property or it was in his lawful possession; thirdly accused had entered into or upon the property unlawfully; and fourthly, that such entry was with the intention to dispossess i.e. ouster, evict or deriving out of possession against will of the person in actual possession, or to grab i.e. capture, seize suddenly, take greedily or unfairly, or to control i.e. to exercise power or influence over, regulate or govern or relates to authority over what was not in one's physical possession or to occupy i.e. holding possession, reside in or something

To examine question of title in respect of the property, Trial Court was to simply form an opinion as to whether prima facie any party was coming within the ambit of definition mentioned in section 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

If Trial Court had formed such opinion from material placed before it, then the Court could proceed with the matter or otherwise, as the case could be

Similar procedure was adopted by Magistrate while exercising powers conferred upon him under S. 145, Cr.P.C., which was normally required to be adopted in such proceedings

Application was filed by the complainant party under S. 145, Cr.P.C., same was dismissed by Deputy District Officer (Revenue) and it was admitted by complainant in his cross-examination

Question of title of property was already pending before competent Court of Civil jurisdiction before filing of complaint

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons by Trial Court and they were acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Complainant was in possession of property and claimed that she was dispossessed by accused persons and threw away her valuable goods and had broken them

Complaint filed against accused persons was dismissed by Trial Court

Validity

Record revealed that complaint was filed much prior to the alleged incident, which did not appeal to mind

Complainant alleged that she purchased the subject property through an agreement dated 15.07.2003 from original owner in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- and she paid all amount through payment receipt on record, but on perusal of said documents the plot number as mentioned in the said agreement was altogether different as mentioned in the Complaint

Said aspect of the case created doubt in claim of the complainant

Witnesses of the said agreement and payment receipt had not been examined in that case to prove the particular facts

Original sale agreement and original payment receipt had not been produced in evidence, those documents were unregistered

Stamp Vender from whom the stamp paper was purchased and Notary Public had not been examined

Said persons were best witnesses to prove the sale agreement executed between complainant and original owner

No reason had been assigned as to why they had not been examined

Said documents could not be safely relied upon in circumstances

Even otherwise sale agreement did not confer any right or title of the subject property in favour of the complainant

No convincing or tangible evidence was on record to show that the accused/ respondents had by force dispossessed the complainant from the subject property or that the complainant was owner of the same

Circumstances established' that no reason was available to interfere with the impugned judgment

Consequently, appeal against acquittal was dismissed.

Allegation against the accused persons was that they in the dark hours of night forcibly occupied an area of approximately 4300 sq yards belonging to the complainant

Evidence produced by the complainant showed that the respondents/accused were not available at the time when complainant party went to the site, where some persons were making construction and the complainant party was informed by them that they were making construction on the behest of respondents/accused

No direct evidence against the respondents for dispossessing the complainant was available, therefore Trial Court had rightly acquitted them while giving the benefit of the doubt

Trial Court had given wait to the civil suit filed by the complainant for the claim of compensation which though earlier decided against the complainant, however on appeal the said judgment was set aside and case was remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law and on remand the said suit was withdrawn by the complainant

Since the suit was withdrawn and earlier judgment of the civil court was set-aside, therefore the same could not be relied upon in favour or against any of the parties

Trial Court had further observed that the ownership of the complainant was under the sword and had not yet been clarified by any proper forum of revenue department or by the Civil Court

Complainant was at liberty to approach the revenue authorities or any other forum available to him under the law for the possession of the subject plot

Since the findings of the Trial Court in respect of title or ownership of the complainant were set aside, therefore, whenever the complainant approached the legal forum for the possession, his case was to be decided in accordance with law

Acquittal appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Petitioners/accused persons were aggrieved of order passed by Trial Court restoring possession to respondents/complainants

Validity

Merely on the basis of civil litigation, legal proceedings in criminal matter neither could be terminated nor transfer of possession in terms of S. 8 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 could be declared illegal

In order to constitute an offence under provisions of S. 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 complainant was to disclose existence of unlawful act (actus reus) and criminal intent (mens rea)

Act of petitioners/accused persons by dispossessing respondents/complainants who were occupant of property with a categorical stance that on a particular date they were illegally dispossessed by petitioners/accused persons was proved not only through oral but also through documentary evidence

Such order was maintained up to Supreme Court

Once Trial Court found commission of offence, i.e. dispossession of respondents/complainants Trial Court rightly ordered that position be restored/handed over to respondents/complainants

Petitioners/accused persons wanted to stay execution proceedings

High Court declined to quash order of restoration of possession passed by Trial Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused was aggrieved of order passed by Trial Court under S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, allowing interim relief to complaint

Validity

Trial could not start until a period of seven days after supplying relevant copies to accused in terms of S. 265-C, Cr.P.C. was expired and charge was framed

Such was considered as first step towards commencement of trial and second step was recording of evidence

Condition of "during trial" as provided in S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was to come in force

Trial Court did not attend itself to condition precedent appearing in S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 before passing order in question, which order was without lawful authority and not sustainable in the eyes of law

High Court set aside order in question and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision afresh after framing of charge and affording right of hearing to parties

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Appellant contended that respondents had illegally and unauthorizedly dispossessed him from the land, whereas the respondents claimed that Government had introduced Goth Abad Scheme and 'Sanads' had been issued in their favour

Both the parties were disputing over the land belonging to the Government

Appellant had not filed any document except the impugned judgment

During pendency of the complaint before the Trial Court, the respondent had filed a civil suit which was still sub judice before the civil court

Trial Court had acquitted the respondents by extending them benefit of doubt on failure of the appellant to prove his case against them beyond reasonable doubt

Judgment suffered from no illegality or misreading or non-reading of the evidence and did not call for any interference in exercise of jurisdiction under the provisions of S.417(2), Cr.P.C.

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Evidence and circumstances of the case showed that the complainant was claiming the Plot No.D-55 old Survey No.10 measuring 900 Square feet without title documents

Complainant failed to produce title document regarding the plot in question

Such was dispute of civil nature between the parties which had been converted to criminal case

Trial Court had assigned sound reasons for acquittal of respondents

Scope of acquittal appeal was narrow and limited; after acquittal, the respondent had earned the double presumption of his innocence

Circumstances established that neither the impugned judgment was artificial nor ridiculous

Acquittal appeal was without merits and was dismissed.

Complainant claimed ownership on the basis of sale agreement, allotment order and possession order issued by the Housing Society and stated that his son, who was also his attorney, came to the city and found the respondents in occupation of the property

Trial Court dismissed the complaint, inter alia, on the ground that on the basis of utility bills and the statement of neighbourer, respondent seemed to be in possession of the property since 2002

Validity

Basic ingredients for setting into motion the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 were lacking in the present case as it was not the case of complainant that he was in possession of the property and that the respondents on certain date and specific time illegally entered the property in question and forcibly or illegally dispossessed him therefrom

Respondents had been in possession of the premises for a considerable period which was even admitted by the complainant by stating that due to non-payment of utility bills by respondents their gas and electricity connections were disconnected

Nowhere in the entire complaint, complainant had alleged his illegal or forcible dispossession at the hand of respondents

Application, being meritless, was dismissed.

Scope of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is very limited and the Court, exercising powers under S. 3 of the Act, is supposed to determine merely the fact as to who was in actual physical possession of the property before filing of the complaint and whether the complainant was dispossessed in an illegal and unlawful manner by the persons arrayed as accused/opponent in such complaint

Court is not competent to give any findings with regard to the title or ownership or, for that matter, in respect of authenticity/genuineness of a document.

Complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was maintainable against any person who had forcibly dispossessed the occupier or owner

Such remedy was not meant to settle civil dispute or a substitute for civil dispute

Civil litigation was pending between the parties

Provision of section 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was applicable only to land grabbers

Petitioner/ complainant failed to produce any legal and cogent evidence in support of his contention, he mentioned different dates of occurrence and had also not filed document before High Court in accordance with law and civil litigation was pending between parties

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Trial Court

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Allegation against the accused was that he along with ten unknown persons dispossessed the complainant illegally on gunpoint from his agricultural land

Complainant claimed to have cultivated the subject land with wheat crop after its purchase through his farmer

Complainant had deposed that on the day of incident he, his hari and a witness were present when respondent along with ten unidentified armed persons had come over the land and had taken away the wheat crop and dispossessed him from the land

Hari/witness had stated that accused along with ten unidentified persons came over the land and said to the complainant that his khata/entry had been cancelled by the EDO Revenue and he forcibly took away wheat produce

Said witness did not utter a single word about dispossession of the complainant from the subject land and even he had not shown the presence of witness

Witness had also stated that accused had taken away the wheat crop in tractor, but he had also not stated a single word about dispossession of the complainant from the subject land

Complainant had also made certain dishonest improvements and material admissions adverse to his case

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed.

Allegation against the accused was that he along with 10 unknown persons dispossessed the complainant illegally on gunpoint from his agricultural land

Record showed that complainant claimed to have purchased land from different persons on different dates

Descriptions and boundaries of the said areas from the survey numbers allegedly purchased by the complainant were nowhere mentioned either in the complaint or even in the evidence led by the prosecution and thus, the identity of the subject land could not be made

Complainant had not produced any document to show that he ever remained in possession of his share in the aforesaid survey numbers

Accused also claimed himself to be the co-sharer in the disputed property

Parties were disputing over the subject property and the accused claimed to be in possession of the disputed property prior to the alleged date of dispossession shown by the complainant, who had not substantiated his case as set out in his complaint by any evidence worth consideration

No case attracting the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 had been made out by the complainant and the matter was purely of civil nature, as the claim of the parties regarding ownership and possession over the disputed property could only be sifted by adducing evidence of the nature before the court of plenary jurisdiction with consequential relief of possession in appropriate proceedings

Circumstances established that the impugned acquittal judgment was apt to the facts and circumstances of the case, which suffered from no illegality or for misreading or non-reading of the evidence thus did not call for any interference

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Complainant had alleged that about three months prior to filing the complaint, accused persons illegally occupied one acre of his land

Record showed that no date and time of the alleged incident was either mentioned in the subject complaint filed under S.3(2) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 or in the evidence of complainant and his witnesses

Even descriptions and boundaries of the subject land measuring 1-0 acres had not been shown in the complaint, which were essential for the identity of the subject area

Complainant had not produced any document to prove that he was owner of the subject land and he ever remained in possession thereof

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Complainant had alleged that about three months prior to filing the complaint, accused persons illegally occupied his land to the extent of one acre, hence the complaint was filed

Record showed that there were material contradictions in the evidence of complainant and witnesses

Witness had deposed that present accused along with absconding accused had occupied one acre land of complainant about 3/4 months prior to that complaint

At the time of alleged incident complainant and witness were also with him when accused occupied the land

Other witness had deposed that the accused had occupied the land at gunpoint by keeping hedge surrounding one acre and also issued threats to the complainant of dire consequences

Witness had deposed that Sonwah was situated about 300/400 feet away from disputed land, while other witness had stated in cross-examination that "Sonwah" would be 08 feet away from the disputed land

Complainant had stated that accused had made one hut at his one acre land forcibly, while witness had stated in cross-examination that accused had made two huts at the land of complainant

Other witness had stated that there were 4/5 houses at the land of complainant

Said material contradictions and discrepancies rendered the case of the complainant doubtful

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Complainant filed against accused persons was dismissed by Trial Court by observing that the parties were already under litigation before competent forum and the dispute could not be decided in a criminal proceeding when no incident of illegal dispossession had taken place

Validity

Record showed that as per his sale deed complainant was not put in possession of the entire land by the seller at the time of execution of the sale deed, meaning thereby that when the complainant had acquired the right, a portion of land was already in possession of somebody else who might be the respondents

Person who sought remedy under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (the Act), could seek such relief provided he was dispossessed from the property

If a person purchased a property from which the previous owner was already dispossessed on any account either by throwing clouds on the title of the previous owner or not, the only course available to the subsequent owner was to approach civil court

In the present case, the complainant was never in the possession of the property in question, rather he was unaware of the fact that when and by whom he or even the previous owner was dispossessed

Complainant, in the existing position of affairs, might have some right enforceable through a civil court but he had no right to put the criminal law in motion under the Act

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 being a special law were only applicable firstly in cases wherein person complained against was found to be not having title thereto, secondly that he had taken possession by use of force, thirdly that he had taken over property without due course of law and fourthly that such person or persons belonged to group of land grabbers

Application/Complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 could only be entertained if there was prima facie material against nominated accused

Civil nature dispute in no way could be allowed to be converted into criminal offence

Complainant was unable to place accused persons in criteria laid down by provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

High Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Trial Court as no case for illegal dispossession was made out on the basis of available material and no illegality or irregularity was pointed out

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner filed application under S. 540, Cr.P.C., for calling the concerned SHO to tender the proposed document as a witness, which application was dismissed by the Trial Court

Validity

If it appeared to the court that a person's evidence was essential to the just decision of the case then there was no discretion to prevent such a person from being examined

Power under S. 540, Cr.P.C., to summon a witness might be exercised either by suo motu or on an application

Person who might not have been examined at the time of investigation or whose name was not included in the calendar of witnesses or in the challan could be summoned under S. 540, Cr.P.C.

In the present case the parties were in dispute over the property, which they claimed to be the owners of on account of petitioners alleged dispossession from the same

Petitioner filed a complaint under Ss. 3, 4 and 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 against the respondents for his alleged dispossession

No doubt, the document which the petitioner wanted to place on record i.e. report of SHO dated 16.12.2019 was not filed at the time of filing the complaint

Perusal of the same prima-facie revealed that allegedly the accused/respondents tried to encroach the unsettled property and the petitioner intended to establish the conduct of the respondents as land grabbers through the said document

Trial Court did not make an effort to satisfy itself or to consider the two essential ingredients; firstly, whether the proposed person was a material witness and, secondly, whether he was essential for a just decision of the case

Trial Court was required to take the entire material and the circumstances of the case into consideration, so as to form an opinion whether summoning of the proposed witness was essential for a just decision of the case

Trial court, while passing the impugned order, did not consider the principles and law laid down for deciding applications under S. 540, Cr.P.C and thereby failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, besides the illegality and material irregularity

Grounds for dismissing the application under S. 540, Cr.P.C., were neither tenable in law nor in consonance with the principles enunciated in that regard

Application was allowed by the High Court setting aside the impugned order and Trial Court was directed to call the proposed witness to place the said document on record according to law.

Complainant was aggrieved of authorities not handing over possession of his illegally dispossessed property despite there being order from the High Court

Accused persons during pendency of proceedings, filed application seeking adding of parties to proceedings which was allowed by Trial Court

Validity

No provision was available in Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 enabling a criminal court to exercise its jurisdiction for impleading any person even at his own as a party during proceedings while trying an offence

Trial Court while passing order failed to consider that criminal court was not conferred upon jurisdiction under any law, either to strike or add any party in pending criminal proceedings

High Court set aside order passed by Trial Court as same was passed illegally, without jurisdiction, without lawful authority and as such same was of no legal effect

High Court declined to interfere in orders for handing over possession of land in question to complainant as it was unchallenged and attained finality

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Complainant had alleged that he was lawful owner of the suit property by virtue of registered sale deed and was residing in the said property for the last ten years

Complainant had entered into sale agreement with respondent in respect of the said property against consideration of Rs. 16 Million, out of which respondent paid an amount of Rs. 96,00,000/- in two instalments and balance of Rs. 64,00,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of transfer/registration of sale deed

Complainant had provided access to the property to the said respondent at his request but the vacant possession was never handed over to the respondent

Later on, other three respondents illegally dispossessed the complainant and his family from the property

Respondent had denied to vacate the property in question although having knowledge that the complainant was the owner of property in question

Trial Court directed the S.H.O. concerned to carry out investigation and submit report which was submitted

Trial Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that civil litigation with regard to illegal dispossession from immovable property was pending between the parties

Validity

Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 itself had provided a remedy on a grievance of illegal possession and forcible/wrongful dispossession, therefore, such complaint would be maintainable regardless of pendency of any civil litigation if, prima facie, the complained possession was without lawful authority

Though, undeniably the parties had entered into an agreement of sale which, legally, did create certain rights in favour of the vendee, but if such agreement was not coupled with delivery of possession, the vendee under garb of such agreement would not be entitled to have possession or control of such property but would be required to seek enforcement of all such rights including possession by way of filing a suit

Agreement, prima facie, showed that the possession was never handed over to the vendee but he was only permitted to start renovation/repair work

Thus, said entry into property was for such purpose only and could not be exploited for any other purpose including one of grabbing or controlling the subject matter, particularly when such permission (right to renovation/repair) was admitted to be with right of owner to have free access to visit the property

Circumstances would lead to no other conclusion that possession of the vendee/respondent even with reference to sale agreement could not be said to be with lawful authority

Prima facie, complaint within the meaning of S.3(1) of the Act only was made out and required proper trial thereof

Mere pendency of lis would never debar entertaining a complaint under the Act if, otherwise, an offence within meaning of the Act appeared to have been made out

Criminal revision application was allowed by setting aside the impugned order and the case was remanded to the Trial Court with direction to record the evidence of the parties and decide the case in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to both the sides.

When court has to pass order for restoration of possession of subject property to owner or occupier and such orders have to be given effect, then in given circumstances of case, court has to exercise inherent powers under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. to secure ends of justice.

Remedy for aggrieved party affected by other offences committed by same party who has contravened S. 3(1) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is also provided in S. 3(2) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

When an offence in respect of moveable property or any other offence is also committed during course of an offence punishable under S. 3(2) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, then for such other offence, accused can be charged and tried separately

Accused even after conviction can be tried for other offences

Such trial is protected by S. 403(4), Cr.P.C.

Law of land and even Shia Personal Law did not authorize Momineen of any locality to request anyone amongst themselves to unlawfully control or occupy immovable property of an orphanage owned by some registered private institution with intention to dispossess, grab, control or occupy said property and dispossess otherwise lawful occupiers of such property

Accused persons, despite backing of so-called religious scholars and their goodwill in community were conscious of fact that they had no moral authority or legal defense to justify taking over possession of subject property and grab and control of resources of private institution

Accused persons never filed any civil suit to seek declaration of their title in respect of subject property as they knew that their so-called working committee was not even fraudulently registered

High Court set aside judgment of acquittal passed by Trial Court and convicted accused persons under S. 3(2) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 along with fine

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Trial Court acquitted absconders without realizing that once court had declared an accused absconder, his case was supposed to be separated from case of other accused facing trial

High Court set aside order of acquittal of absconding accused and remanded case to Trial Court for proceedings in accordance with law

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Accused persons cannot contend that complainant has no lawful authority to file legal proceedings in view of S. 92, C.P.C. when raised before a court seized of a criminal case

Proceedings under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 cannot be regulated by Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

If at all there is any defect in status of owner to hold, occupy and control subject property of private institution, accused are not supposed to contravene S. 3(1) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

Trial Court handed over possession of disputed property to complainant under S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (the Act) while accused were acquitted

Scope

Record showed that accused were not found guilty of offence within the meaning of S. 3 of the Act, hence they were acquitted of the charge yet order was recorded for restoration of possession to the complainant

Provision of S. 3 of the Act, defined the offence and punishments thereof which, however, did not include restoration of possession

Restoration of possession could not be ordered as punishment which, on proving of guilt, was legally awarded as must

Order for restoration of possession had been dealt with independently which the Court might have ordered but only when the Court was passing a punishment within meaning of subsections (2) and (3) of S. 3 of the Act

In the present case, no punishment had been passed rather accused/appellants stood acquitted of offence

In such eventualities the Trial Court was never competent to legally order for restoration of possession which could only be restored within meaning of S. 8 of the Act

Admittedly, complainant had not filed acquittal appeal, thus it could safely be said that such direction/order was nothing but a pure excess of jurisdiction without any back of law hence, the same could not be sustained

Trial Court had travelled beyond jurisdiction thus appeal was allowed by setting aside impugned judgment only to extent of challenged portion regarding restoration of possession

Failure in complaint under S.3 of the Act, would never create a legal bar in obtaining possession or removal of illegal occupants by resort to other legal remedies because such remedy was a special one and in no way prejudice other available legal remedies.

Such circumstances were sufficient to conclude that there was no illegal or wrongful entrance into or upon the disputed property

Offence under S.3(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was not made out in circumstances

No conviction could, therefore, sustain under S.3(2) of the Act

Record transpired that complainant had stated that due to fear of life he along with his family was compelled to leave the house in question

Prima facie, the complainant never successfully established his forcible or wrongful dispossession which, otherwise, was necessary ingredient to make out offence within the meaning of S.3(3) of the Act

Property in question, was situated in a populated area where forcible dispossession of complainant had happened on gun point

Complainant did not examine any independent person from the mohalla so as to prove his claimed forcible dispossession on a particular date and time

Circumstances established that the complainant had failed in proving the offence within the meaning of S.3(3) of the Act

Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances.