IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,
LARKANA
Crl. Revision Appln. No. S- 25 of 2018.
Gulab Channa and another. …………...Applicants.
Versus
Abdul Nabi Khokhar
& others. ……..….Respondents.
Mr. Mazhar Ali Mangan, Advocate for the applicants.
None present for the private respondents.
Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, Assistant Prosecutor General.
Date of hearing: 04.11.2022.
Date of order: 04.11.2022.
ORDER
Amjad Ali Sahito, J- Through this revision application, the applicant has assailed the order dated 31.03.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kamber, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed a complaint, filed by the applicant under provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.
The facts of the case as depicted from para 2 of the impugned, read as under:
“That on 12.11.2016, the complainant alongwith his witnesses was present at their land bearing S. Nos.481 and 487, situated at Deh Lashkari Chandio, Taluka Kamber, when at about 08.00 a.m. the private respondents with lethal weapons had entered into the land of the complainants; forcibly and illegally occupied the said land of the complainants and also issued threats of the murder to them then the complainants had appeared before this Court and filed this complaint.”
On such complaint, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after going through the relevant record and perusing the reports of SHO and the Mukhtiarkar came to conclusion that the matter is of civil nature and the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, do not attract to the case, as such the impugned order was passed by dismissing the complaint, leaving the complainant/ applicant at liberty to avail the civil remedy before the Court hving jurisdiction, if he so advised.
It would be conducive to reproduce the relevant paragraph of the impugned, which reads as under:
“From the perusal of reports submitted by the SHO and Mukhtiarkar concerned it reveals that the aforementioned land in question had not illegally occupied by the private respondents as narrated by the complainant in his complaint. The SHO concerned further reported that the complainant’s side had given the land to the Chandia community under agreement for which they had taken Rs.2100000/- as token money, which was the outcome of their “fasila”, which was made in the wake of their previous murderous enmity in which complainant side had lodged F.I.R No.54/2001, under Section 302 P.P.C at P.S Mahi Makol. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per the detailed report of the concerned SHO that the respondents had not illegally and forcibly occupied the land of the complainant and he has also not rebutted the report submitted by the SHO. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that it is clear dispute of civil nature. Therefore, the instant complaint is hereby dismissed. However, complainant is at liberty to avail the civil remedy before the Court having jurisdiction, if so advised.”
Heard learned counsel for applicant, as well as learned A.P.G and gone through the material available on record and the impugned order as well.
The learned counsel for the applicant while arguing his case has re-iterated the same facts and grounds as urged in the memo of complaint to the effect that the land in question was illegally occupied by private respondents on 12.11.2016, though they have no any right or title over property in question and that they have illegally occupied over it. Learned counsel pointed out that the report of Mukhtiarkar has supported the version of applicant/ complainant.
Conversely, the learned A.P.G. while referring to the report of the SHO furnished to trial Court supported the impugned order.
It is worth mentioning that the reports of Mukhtiarkar as well as SHO concerned are on the record. The SHO has reported that according to his enquiry, the possession of land in question was handed over by the applicant/ complainant party to private respondents through agreement pursuant to private “fasila” in respect of murderous enmity between the parties; the applicant party had also obtained an amount of Rs.2100000/- from private respondents’ party as earnest money, while remaining was promised to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed; however such mutation did not take place. The report of SHO further revealed that no such incident of illegally occupation by the private respondents over the land in question has ever taken place on 12.11.2016.
In the written statement/ parawise reply furnished before learned trial Court by private respondents available at page 19 [annexure-“B”], they have also taken such stance as reported by the SHO, that they were put into possession pursuant to agreement and private “fasila”. In view of above factual position, the learned trial Court has rightly observed and come to conclusion that the matter is of civil nature and the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, do not attract to the case.
The preamble and scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is limited and applicable to dispossession by land grabbers, Qabza group and land-mafia from immovable property. Here, in this case, the respondents (who are not allegedly belonging to group of land grabbers, Qabza group and of land mafia) were voluntarily put into possession of premises in question by the applicant party pursuant to agreement and private “fasila”. As such, the applicant has a remedy available to him to approach the relevant forum for redressal of his grievance as has already been observed by learned trial Court in the impugned order. It seems that, by filing these criminal proceedings, the applicant is trying to give a criminal color to a dispute, which seems to be purely of civil nature.
In view of the above, the impugned order does not appear to be suffering from any illegality, as such the same is maintained and the instant criminal revision application is hereby dismissed.
Judge
Ansari