Prevention of illegal possession of property

Complainant filed applications under Ss. 345(2) & 345(6), Cr.P.C with the submission that possession of the disputed property had been restored to him, therefore, he with the core of his heart had forgiven the accused "AA" and he had no objection if the said accused was acquitted of the charge

Since, the complainant had entered into compromise with main co-accused "AA" and the possession of disputed property had also been restored to him; hence, the case of co-appellant was at par and conviction could not be maintained more particularly when on identical charge, co-accused had been acquitted by way of compromise; besides, possession of the disputed property had been restored to the complainant

Admittedly, complainant as well as appellant "AA" had amicably settled all their differences and agreed to pass rest of their lives in peace, tranquility and harmony

Non-compound- ability of a particular offence under any section of the enactment 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

In present case, though the possession of the disputed property had been handed over/restored to the complainant yet he had entered into compromise with only appellant "AA" however, had not compromised with co-appellant

As far as, case of co-appellant was concerned, no different charge was framed against him nor any specific allegation regarding dispossessing the complainant from the particular property had been leveled against him

In such state of affairs, case of co-appellant could not be bifurcated or separated

Appeal against conviction of co-appellant was allowed accordingly.

Contents of the complaint would transpire that the complainant had not complained of any specific occurrence in terms of time and date as well as mode and manner of the occurrence regarding the dispossession or interference in his lawful possession

Non-mentioning of the date and time of the alleged dispossession gained much more significance

Complainant admitted in his cross-examination the existence of walls and DPC over the disputed property, from the last 16 years, therefore, the alleged plea of complainant with respect to his lawful possession was prima facie not above board

Record showed that the lawful ownership and possession of the respondent/complainant qua the disputed property was standing in vacuum, as it was his case that he purchased the disputed property from the wife of the co-accused through mutation dated 05.05.2005, however, it was also part of the record that the said wife of the co-accused filed a civil suit before the competent Court of law challenging therein the aforesaid sale mutation

In view of the above lacunas in the evidence so furnished by the respondent/complainant, benefit of the same had to be extended to the appellant/accused at least in terms of his conviction under the Act of 2005

Even otherwise, the issue of handing over possession of the disputed property to the respondent/complainant had already been settled through the impugned order/judgment, whereby it was specifically directed that local Administration/S.H.O was to restore possession of the disputed property to the respondent/complainant within a period of one month

Criminal appeal was disposed of in terms that the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused was maintained, however, his sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by him in the jail.

Purpose of provisions of S.265-K, Cr.P.C. was very much clear and it never prevented a Court from acquitting an accused at any stage of the case, if, after hearing the prosecution and the accused and for reasons to be recorded, the Court considered that there was no probability of the accused being convicted of the offence alleged against them

There was no legal embargo for exercising of powers conferred under S.265-K Cr.P.C, but even then the Court cannot deprive the prosecution of an opportunity to produce tangible evidence under the garb of S.265-K, Cr.P.C., therefore, it was mandatory for the Court that such discretion must be based on reasons exercised with due care and caution with sole object to prevent fruitless trial when it was apparent from the record that there was no probability of the accused being convicted of the offence

Perusal of impugned order revealed that after examining the entire material, the trial Court observed that there would be no probability of conviction of respondents 1 to 3 in near future and acquitted them from the charge under S.265-K, Cr.P.C.

Appellant had failed to establish extra ordinary reasons and circumstances, whereby the acquittal order recorded by the Trial Court might be interfered with by the High Court

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Application of petitioner for abatement of entire proceedings in the case due to death of his father, (one of the accused) and on account of declaration of two other accused persons as proclaimed offenders, was dismissed

Validity

Section 512, Cr.P.C., provided that if an accused person had absconded and there was no immediate prospect of arresting him, the Court competent to try such person for the offence complained of may, in his absence, examined the witnesses (if any) produced on behalf of the prosecution and record their depositions

Any such depositions may, on the arrest of such person, be given in evidence against him on the inquiry into, or trial for, the offence with which he was charged

Said provision was self-explanatory whereunder trial Court was vested with authority to record evidence in absence of absconding accused

Even otherwise, trial/proceedings in complaint under the Act of 2005 were to be conducted in letter and spirit of the provisions particularly Ss.3, 7 and 8 of the Act of 2005, which entailed in-built mechanism to conduct proceedings and to conclude the same in due course

In view of above, impugned order appeared to be in accordance with law on the subject

Petition being devoid of merits was dismissed with the directions that matter to the extent of conviction of petitioner's father had been over on account of his death and proceedings to the extent of absconding accused shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions on the subject.

Legality or competence of the Civil Court in issuing such directions could not be discussed by High Court while exercising criminal jurisdiction but what could safely be said was that such action of 're-possession' was under a lawful authority, hence, no offence within meaning of S. 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was made out

Possession was taken within the spirit of judgment passed in the civil suit, therefore, the complaint was rightly dismissed

Revision application was dismissed.

Prima facie, S. 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is aimed to prevent "illegal possession" and shall be available only against those who enter into or upon any property to dispossess, grab, control or occupy the same without having any lawful authority

Emphasis over phrase "without having any lawful authority" shall have to be given due regard

Possession/having a lawful authority for entering into or upon a property shall always be a sufficient 'defence' to hold such complaint as "incompetent".

Applicant assailed order passed by Trial Court whereby applicant was acquitted of the charge under Ss. 3 & 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, but a direction was issued to the Mukhtiarkar to demarcate the disputed land and put the complainant in possession whereof, if the applicant was found to be in its possession

Case of complainant was that the applicant had occupied his property by dispossessing him but the complainant had failed to prove such assertion beyond shadow of doubt

Trial Court had no jurisdiction to issue direction to the Mukhtiarkar and that too without providing chance of hearing to either of the parties on that particular point, which was against the mandate of Art. 10-A of the Constitution

Trial Court had assumed the jurisdiction of civil/revenue court, which was authorized under the law to resolve such dispute between the parties

Impugned judgment was set aside to the extent of direction to Mukhtiarkar

Application was disposed of accordingly.

Complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is maintainable even where civil litigation is going on while a person can be tried under both kinds of proceedings (civil as well as criminal) which are independent of each other, therefore, a complaint cannot be dismissed summarily on the ground of maintainability due to existence of civil dispute between the parties.

Any act which entails civil liability under Civil Law as well as criminal penalty under Criminal Law such as Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, then a person can be tried under both kinds of proceedings, which are independent of each other

No one can be allowed to take law in his own hands and unlawfully dispossess an owner or lawful occupier of an immovable property and then seek to thwart the criminal proceedings against him under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, on the pretext that civil litigation on the issue is pending adjudication between the parties in a court of law

Irrespective of any civil litigation that may be pending before any Court, where an offence, as described in the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, has been committed, the proceedings under the said Act can be initiated as the same would be maintainable in law.

Police (S.H.O.) concerned had reported that the complainant was in possession of the land before the filing of complaint and that the respondents were in illegal possession of the same

Complainant had given the date and time of the alleged dispossession and had also given the account of incident wherein it was stated that about 20-30 persons had taken illegal possession of the subject land, constructed a room and the pictures were also tendered

No justification existed to dismiss the complaint in cursory manner by overturning the incriminating material which, prima facie, supported the alleged forceful dispossession

Constitutional petition was allowed, impugned order was set aside and the Trial Court was directed to decide the complaint in accordance with law.

Board of Revenue had dismissed the petition of the complainant, whereby it was held that complainant was not entitled to ownership

Complainant had not mentioned in his complaint the boundaries of the property or its mutation number

Station House Officer had reported that the property was in possession of respondents

Civil dispute between the parties was pending

No evidence with regard to forceful dispossession was produced by the complainant

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellants challenged order passed by Trial Court whereby they were acquitted but were ordered to restore possession of complainant's share

Section 8 read with subsections (2) and (3) of S. 3 revealed that the Court in case of conviction of the accused could pass the order for restoration of the property but in the present case the Trial Court, after recording evidence, acquitted the accused on the one hand and on the other hand ordered for restoration of possession of the land to the complainant

Conviction was sine qua non for handing over the possession under S. 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Findings of the Trial Court were not in consonance with the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, as well as S. 367, Cr.P.C., requiring the Court to give specific findings for determination of a criminal controversy

Judgment of the Trial Court, being illegal, was liable to be set aside

Appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the Trial Court to pass an appropriate judgment.

Interpreted.

Offence under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, shall be tried by Court of Session, but it does not specify the application of Chap. XX or XXII-A, Cr.P.C. for the purpose of trial as usually supplied through legislation for courts which work under special laws

Under S. 5 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, mode of inquiry and investigation is entirely different as to one mentioned under S. 202, Cr.P.C., therefore, when there is contrast which principle is to be followed, either principle of specific prohibition or principle of express provision, the circumstances always lean toward specific prohibition

As there is no specific prohibition with respect to application of S. 248, Cr.P.C., to a complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005; therefore, such provision shall be available to the court trying such complaint

Section 9 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, also supports what has been discussed above.

Offence under S. 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is not compoundable.

When the complaint is dismissed under S. 203, Cr.P.C. or against other interlocutory orders passed during the proceedings, the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked yet challenging acquittal in revisional jurisdiction has no room in the eyes of law

As such, the complainant can at the most assail such acquittal through constitutional petition which is always available to the aggrieved if there is no other efficacious remedy.

Applicant assailed order passed by Trial Court whereby her application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. for pre-mature acquittal was dismissed

Validity

Bare reading of S.265-K, Cr.P.C., revealed that it was not meant for cases registered upon complaint

Once cognizance was taken in terms of Ss.3 & 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the complaint could not be dismissed summarily

Dispute between the parties could not be resolved under S.265-K, Cr.P.C., by acquitting the accused person

Revision application was dismissed, in circumstances.

SHO (Station House Officer) during investigation had not stated that the accused had illegally and forcibly dispossessed the complainant from the house and had stated that the house usually remained closed and after some time accused started living in the said house

Witnesses whose statements were recorded by the S.H.O. were not produced by the complainant, which suggested that had they been examined, they would have not supported the prosecution case

Complainant had failed to prove his case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed.

Appellant/complainant had stated in his direct complaint that he was dispossessed forcibly by the respondents when he along with his boys and haries was present at his property, whereas, the reports furnished by the Mukhtiarkar as well as SHO (Station House Officer) disclosed that father of the private respondents was in possession since last 25/30 years, as such the controversy between the parties required evidence

Trial Court, in such circumstances, ought to have proceeded with the case by recording evidence of the complainant and his witnesses in order to thrash out the crucial point involved in the matter with regard to claim of the parties over the possession of the disputed land

Impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court.

Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is a special law intended to curb illegal dispossession and is not parallel to proceedings in a civil suit

No bar exists in simultaneous proceedings under the civil suit, criminal motion and the complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 specifically envisages time line for decision of the case

Under S.5(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, or upon taking cognizance of a case, the Court shall proceed with the trial on day to day basis and shall decide the same within sixty days and for any delay, sufficient reasons shall be recorded

Section 5(3) stipulates that the Court shall not adjourn the trial for any purpose unless such adjournments is, in its opinion necessary in the interest of justice and no adjournment shall be granted for more than seven days

Proceedings under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, are summary in nature to be concluded within sixty days and in case there is any delay, it is obligatory for the Court to record reasons in writing for such a delay while frequent adjournments are to be avoided.

Petitioner filed a complaint under Ss. 3, 4 & 5 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, with the claim that the respondent along with his companions, in his absence, broke the locks of his house and illegally occupied the same

Report of Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station revealed that house in question was in possession of another person who had further rented it out to another

Trial Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the matter pertained to civil dispute

Validity

Petitioner had failed to make the said two persons as party in his complaint

Matter pertained to factual controversy which could be resolved after thorough inquiry and recording of evidence in a civil court

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Complainant's case was that she was handed over the possession of suit property through warrant of possession but after three days she was dispossessed by the petitioners

Girdawar Circle stated that no warrant of possession was issued by the Revenue Officer for the relevant date; that he had not taken over the possession from the judgment-debtor of the partition proceedings; that he had not given any notice to the petitioners for execution and that the complainant was not present at the time of execution proceedings but her husband was present

Complainant had failed to prove her possession over the suit property by convincing, concrete and direct evidence rather there were contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses thus, there remained no case for recovery of possession against the petitioners

Constitutional petition was allowed and the impugned judgment was set aside, in circumstances.

Applicant challenged the order passed by trial court whereby his complaint was dismissed with the observation that dispute between the parties was of civil nature

Contention of respondents was that the subject property was handed over to them in lieu of a compromise agreement in a murder case

Validity

Order passed by trial court was based on the reports of Assistant Commissioner and SHO (Station House Officer)

Report of SHO was based on another criminal case but record of the case was never produced

Report of Assistant Commissioner transpired that subject property was recorded in the name of the person regarding whom the applicant claimed to be his predecessor and that the name of respondents was not mentioned in the original record

No compromise agreement was produced by the respondents

Contention of respondents supported the case of applicant that the subject property belonged to him and his family members

High Court observed that Trial Court should have deeply appreciated the facts to ascertain the truth rather than passing the order only on the reports, particularly, that of SHO, which was merely a statement without any supporting document

Order passed by Trial Court was set aside and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh.

In order to constitute an offence under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the complaint must disclose actus reus and mens rea, and if the facts that constitute an offence under S. 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, were not disclosed through complaint or documents with it, then the Court could dismiss the complaint straightaway.

Respondents filed eviction petition regarding tenement adjoining (tenement) to that of appellant's, which was ultimately allowed but the tenant's attorney (the Attorney) while delivering possession of the tenement also delivered possession of the cabin of appellant

Respondents conceded that the cabin was in possession of appellant's father as tenant; that the cabin was not covered by the decree; that they intended to receive possession only of the tenement and that the matter of cabin was between appellant and the Attorney

Attorney contended that the cabin was part and parcel of the tenement and had been in his use as such since long

Appellant stated that he left for India in 1992 leaving the cabin with his brother; that his brother also left for India in 1995 leaving the cabin with the Attorney; that his brother came back to Pakistan in 2001 and took possession from the Attorney; that his brother again left for India in 2005 while placing the cabin under his lock; that his brother did not return and passed away in 2007; that in the meanwhile the Attorney took illegal possession of the cabin; that the appellant came back from India in 2008 and demanded possession of the cabin from the Attorney who refused

Held; assuming the statement of the appellant to be true, the complaint was not made against the Attorney but against the respondents

Possession of respondents, through court order, remained intact, such possession of the respondents could not be termed as illegal

Allegation in the complaint did not disclose a case of illegal dispossession within the meaning of S. 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Under S. 8-A of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, order that was appealable to High Court was an order made: (a) under subsection (2) of S. 3 of the said Act; (b) under subsection (3) of S. 3 of the Act; and (c) under subsection (1) of S. 8 of the Act

Orders passed under subsections (2) & (3) of S. 3 of the Act were those where a punishment was handed down; whereas an order under subsection (1) of S. 8 was where a further direction were given for restoration of possession of the property

Order impugned was neither of such orders as it was an order dismissing the complaint and therefore not appealable under S. 8-A of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

Complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is not meant either to equate a civil proceedings or to frustrate a civil suit.

Stage of associating the respondents (proposed accused) in the proceedings had not yet arrived when the complaint was dismissed

Complainant had filed the criminal miscellaneous application against dismissal of his complaint and during its pendency, he expired

Held, had the respondents been acquitted by the Trial Court then the right would have survived in favour of the legal heirs of complainant

Filing of fresh criminal complaint was possible in the present case, which was dismissed at pre-trial stage

Second or subsequent complaint could, however, be filed on fresh facts and circumstances

Criminal miscellaneous application was disposed of by the High Court with the observation that the legal heirs of the deceased could file a fresh complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

Complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is maintainable against any person who forcibly dispossesses the occupier or owner but such remedy is never meant to settle civil dispute or a substitute for the civil suit.

Applicant claimed that his brother who was also his business partner dispossessed him from the place of business (restaurant) and ultimately demolished the same

Trial court dismissed the complaint

Validity

Applicant himself admitted the status of respondent as that of partner

Prima facie, each partner would be presumed to be in possession or control of business, hence legally the remedy of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 would not be available for a partner against other partner even if the allegation was that of dispossession

Application was dismissed.

Once the ingredients of S.3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, appeared to have constituted the remedy, including that of interim relief, same could not be denied, merely with reference to a sale agreement; else the object and purpose of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, would stand frustrated which otherwise was insisted to be protected, regardless of pendency of any civil litigation or claimed title therein

Purchaser would continue enjoying all his rights arising out of sale agreement, and could well be put into vacant possession of subject matter, on success of his only available right i.e. to file a suit for specific performance of contract, which, could include compensation.

Owner and/or occupier of the property can approach the court of competent jurisdiction for seeking relief under the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

Complainant, in order to avail the benefit of S. 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 has to prima facie establish before the court that he is lawful owner or was occupier of the subject property; that accused had entered into or upon the said property without having any lawful authority; that the accused had done so with the intention to dispossess or to grab or to control or to occupy the said property

Order as an interim relief regarding restoration of the possession of the subject property to the complainant under the provisions of section 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 can only be passed when prima facie it is established to the satisfaction of the court that the complainant is a lawful owner of the subject property; that he was illegally and forcibly dispossessed by the accused and that the accused is in an unlawful possession of the subject property.

Prosecution case against appellant/accused was that he and ten other persons encroached upon the property of respondents

Respondents filed direct complaint under the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and Trial Court sought reports from SHO and Mukhtiarkar and same were brought on record

Trial Court convicted the accused and acquitted all others

Validity

None of the reporting officers was examined by prosecution at trial

Reports of SHO and Mukhtiarkar nowhere disclosed that land owned by respondents was occupied by anyone

To maintain conviction under S.3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, complainant must establish either illegal dispossession by means of unauthorized entry into or upon disputed property or by proving forcible or wrongful possession

Complainant must be owner or occupier of disputed property and must have been forcibly or wrongfully removed but in the present case, reports, on the basis whereof, cognizance was taken, nowhere indicated that appellant was in possession of land of respondents

When it was never established that appellant and acquitted co-accused had been in illegal possession of property of respondents, no conviction legally could sustain under S. 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Allegations against all the accused persons were same but on same set of evidence, Trial Court had acquitted co-accused persons, excepting the present accused

Evidence was to be believed or disbelieved as a whole and not in parts unless exceptions so justified

Thing which prevailed with Trial Court was that he himself had lodged an FIR against respondents and others for having taken away his bricks from the plot

Legally a counter claim/version might, at the most, be taken as a circumstance for a certain part of allegations but not as proof of guilt for whole allegations

Lodgment of FIR of theft of bricks by appellant himself even would never relieve prosecution/complainant from its bounden obligation to prove the offence which too in the manner as claimed

Burden of proof in a criminal case could not be shifted to the accused

Any failure or a reasonable dent in such proof would be sufficient for acquittal by extending benefit of doubt

Report from Mukhtiarkar was also called for during the course of hearing of appeal, and as per the said report, not a single inch of land owned by the respondents was in possession of the accused

Conviction and sentence recorded against accused being not sustainable was set aside and accused was acquitted of the charge.

To maintain conviction under S.3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, complainant must establish either illegal dispossession by means of unauthorized entry into or upon disputed property or by proving forcible or wrongful possession

Complainant must be 'owner' or 'occupier' of disputed property and must have been forcibly or wrongfully removed.

Accused had stated that he was not willing to pursue claim over the property in dispute provided compensation amount was forgiven by complainant and the sentence awarded was also waived by reducing the same to the period already spent by him in jail till his release on bail

Complainant had made a statement in writing to forgo compensation amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- imposed by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment

Complainant further stated that if the accused did not pursue or did not claim anything adverse to the interest of complainant in respect of the property in dispute, he had no objection to even reduction of punishment of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the accused

Validity

Record showed that the complainant did not press for conviction and the accused would not interfere with the possession and title of the complainant on the property in dispute

Impugned judgment was modified and sentence awarded to the accused was reduced to the period of his confinement already undergone

Order of compensation was also recalled since the complainant had already forgiven

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Section 9 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, had made the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 applicable to the cases under the Act

Aggrieved person, had a right of appeal or revision as provided in the Cr.P.C., for redressal of his grievance.

Father of the complainant had contracted second marriage and the accused persons were claiming their right through his (father's) second wife

Contention of the accused persons regarding pendency of the civil appeals had no nexus with present criminal case, nor would the same affect the final outcome of the complaint, as the accused were not parties to those appeals

Accused persons had not filed any civil suit or Revenue appeal for determination of their rights over the case land; thus, they could not have resisted the adjudication of the direct complaint filed by the complainant purely on the allegations of illegal dispossession

Complainant had claimed his ownership over the case property on the basis of the revenue record which had been verified and confirmed by the Revenue authorities, which the Trial Court had ignored while passing the impugned order of dismissal

Complainant had also disclosed specific date and time of his alleged dispossession, while, on the other hand, the accused persons had not produced any record in their favour

In absence of any civil suit filed by the accused persons to seek declaration of their rights or title over the case property, the claim of the complainant as to ownership regarding the case property supported by the Revenue record could not have been discarded merely on the grounds that the accused were claiming their right of ownership over the case property being the legal heirs of their mother, who was entitled to her share in the inherited property, and there was no entry or mutation of khata in her name in the Revenue record

Case land had neither been mutated in the names of the accused persons nor had they shown any justification for occupying the same

Complainant was the lawful owner of the case property having the title documents in his name and said factum had been established during the inquiry conducted by the Trial Court through the SHO and Mukhtiarkar of the Revenue that the case land belonged to the complainant being the inherited property of his forefathers

Trial Court thus had dismissed the complaint on surmises and conjectures without complying with the pre-requisites, and the impugned order was contrary to the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

High Court, set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Trial Court for decision afresh strictly on merits

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Trial Court convicted accused under S.3(2) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and awarded sentence to suffer R.I. for 8 years with fine

Prosecutor General, had submitted that ingredients of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 were not present in the case, as no exact date and time of commission of alleged offence was mentioned in the charge

Statement of sole witness recorded before the Trial Court did not disclose anything which could attract the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Charge did not specify the allegations which could constitute alleged offence

Even the statement of complainant before the Trial Court did not disclose anything which could attract S.3(2) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 under which accused was convicted

Counsel for complainant had submitted that parties had patched-up the matter, and currently complainant had no grievance against accused in respect of subject matter of the case

Accused was acquitted from the charge framed against him by the Trial Court, and he being on bail, his bail bond was discharged, in circumstances.

Petitioners, who were lawful owners in possession of land in question, alleged that, respondents had illegally encroached upon almost entire land in question by dispossessing the petitioners from said land

Petitioners filed complaint under Ss.3 & 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and the trial of the case commenced

When the matter was at the stage of arguments, without recording of remaining evidence, petitioners requested the Trial Court through application for summoning of the witnesses, as the list of witnesses, could not be attached at the earlier stage of the complaint

Said application was dismissed by the Trial Court

Validity

Witnesses, required to be summoned, were necessary material witnesses for reaching at a just and proper conclusion of the matter; and if they were not summoned, petitioners would suffer irreparable loss

Petitioners did not figure out names of any other prosecution witness in the list, which was initially required to be submitted in compliance of S.265-C, Cr.P.C.

Non-furnishing list whereof, would not disentitle the complainant to call or recall any other prosecution witness during proceedings

Any party to the proceedings; during investigation or trial, as envisaged by S.94, Cr.P.C., could request for summoning the record through witnesses for the purpose of just and fair trial

Administration of criminal justice required that every opportunity to the parties be provided

Petitioners/complainants, had sought examination of those prosecution witnesses, whose names could not be submitted earlier

Charges had not been framed, which was the stage of commencement of trial

Prior to that, an opportunity could be provided to summon the witnesses, as S.265-C, Cr.P.C., required for production of statements of prosecution witnesses and requisition of record

Petitioners under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 were not debarred to summon witnesses or the record

Impugned order was set aside

Application moved by the petitioners for summoning of record through witnesses, was allowed, in circumstances.

Trial Court, allowing application under S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, restored possession of the subject property to the complainants

Validity

Provisions of S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 manifested that grant of interim relief was subject to the condition, 'during trial'

Taking cognizance of the case by the court was the first step, which might or might not culminate into the trial of the accused, and trial did not commence with taking of the cognizance

Trial would not start until a period of seven days after supplying of the relevant copies to the accused in terms of S. 265-C(2)(b), Cr.P.C. had expired and the charge had been framed

Court had to perform its judicial duty under S. 265-D, Cr.P.C. to frame the charge after perusal of the police report, complaint and all other documents/statements filed by the prosecution, and if the court was of the opinion that sufficient ground existed to proceed with the trial, the court would frame charge in writing against the accused

Provision of S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 had to be seen in the context of the word used in the same, especially the words, 'Court is satisfied' and 'found prima facie', which cast duty upon the court to perform all those functions, which required in framing of charge

Application of S.7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, therefore, could only be assumed when the entire material had been looked into and the court was of the considered view that the charges prima facie existed against the accused

Section 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 would, therefore, could only come into play after framing of the charge

Trial Court had yet to conclude prima facie existence of the allegations after perusal of the FIR, police report, statement of witnesses and other documents and had to formulate its mind to frame the charge under S. 265-D, Cr.P.C. or otherwise

In the present case, as the charge had not yet been framed, order passed under S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was illegal and without jurisdiction

High Court, setting aside the impugned order, held that the application under S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 would be deemed to be pending before the Trial Court, and the same would be taken up after the commencement of the trial

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Claim of complainant that she was owner of subject flat, was dismissed by the Trial Court holding that complainant was not in possession of flat in dispute; and that her claim did not fall within the ambit of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Comprehensive report submitted by S.H.O. concerned, had shown that complainant neither remained in possession of subject flat, nor she was owner of the same

Complainant had been claiming ownership as buyer of subject flat in the year 1983, but lease was not executed in her favour, nor such document had been produced by her; she had admitted that she never remained in physical possession of said flat and had failed to produce any evidence or documentary proof to establish her ownership over the same

Mandatory requirement for invoking provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 were also missing in the case as complainant had failed to mention the specific date and time of her alleged dispossession from said flat

Impugned order passed by Trial Court did not call for interference as the complainant had failed to point out any irregularity and infirmity in the impugned order

Impugned order was maintained, in circumstances.

Complainant/ appellant filed complaint against accused under Ss.3 & 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 alleging therein that he was owner of disputed flat and accused had illegally occupied the same

Accused claimed that his father had purchased the flat in question from the complainant vide a sale agreement and possession had also been handed over to him, and that electricity and gas connections of the flat were also in the name of his father

Trial Court dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused

Validity

During course of evidence accused produced the sale agreement, utility bills in the name of his father and a tenancy agreement executed between his father and a tenant

Complainant could not furnish any explanation as to how the electricity and gas connection of the flat were installed in the name of father of accused, nor he satisfied the court as to why he did not take any steps for getting the name of accused's father cancelled from the utility connections

Complainant had admitted in his cross-examination that he never filed any application nor approached the Electric Supply Company for changing the name of accused's father from the electricity bill

During cross-examination of accused counsel for complainant did not suggest that tenancy agreement executed by father of accused was fake or forged

Record established that father of accused had rented out flat in question to a tenant

Question was as to what prevented the complainant from evicting father of accused from the flat at the relevant time

Appeal against acquittal of accused was dismissed in circumstances.

Complainant in his deposition before the Trial Court did not deny the suggestion that the accused were in possession of disputed property since 2007

Complainant had not stated that he was in possession of the disputed property and only stated that when visited the disputed property along with tenant he found that the locks were broken, however, it had not been mentioned as to when he visited the property or when the said locks were found broken

Witness produced by the complainant admitted in his cross examination that two other properties were sold out by the seller, her husband, however, it was stated that share of the accused (two brothers) was given to them

No allegation was on record that the accused or any one of them was involved in land-grabbing or belonged to qabza group/land mafia

Dispute was in respect of the properties and it had not been established by evidence that at any point of time possession of the disputed property was handed over to the complainant

Complainant could not claim dispossession at the hands of the accused when he was never in physical possession of the disputed property

Residence of the accused in the disputed property could not be proved as illegal dispossession of the complainant

Certain justifiable claims existed like dispute between legal heirs, between co-shares, rightful claim, between landlord and tenant, inheritance, contractual agreement etc., but to attract the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, and its operation, was restricted in its scope and applicability into those cases where dispossession from immovable property had come about

Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was specifically promulgated for curbing the illegal activities of the land mafia/qabza group/land grabbers and was only applicable to those cases where it was shown that the accused belonged to any of such category and had illegally dispossessed someone to grab his property

Provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, were not attracted in the present case and said Act would come to the rescue of not only the owner of immovable property but also to the occupier of immovable property

Dispute between the complainant, seller on the one side and accused on the other side was of civil nature and the same had to be decided by civil court having jurisdiction

Appeal was found to be devoid of any merit and was dismissed and complainant was directed to restore the possession of the disputed property to the accused.

Allegations against the accused were that they illegally occupied the property owned by the complainant and also demolished the constructions

Contention of the accused persons was that they, being owners of the disputed property, were in possession of the same

Accused moved application under S.265-K, Cr. P. C. for their acquittal but the same was dismissed by the Trial Court

Validity

Complainant purchased various lands through registered sale deeds and in his cursory evidence specifically asserted that he purchased land during the period 2003 to 2007 and took over possession and in his absence in May 2007, the accused illegally took over the possession of his property and demolished a constructed room and by converting the shape of the land into housing society, started illegal alienation

Witnesses of the complainant also supported his version and in such state of affairs it would not be in the interest of justice to put an end to the proceedings as apparently there existed sufficient material

Police report was not conclusive and had no binding effect as the complaint would be decided on the basis of its own merits and the evidence advanced by both sides and accused would have full opportunity to adduce their version in defence

Circumstances of the present case did deserve cursory disposal of the matter and there was no bar on the aggrieved person from availing remedy against the offender under any other law as well as under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, as subsection 2(3) was clear in such respect, so pendency of civil suit inter se the parties created no embargo for proceedings under the special law

Revision was dismissed.