ORDER SHEET
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANO
Cr. Rev. Appln. No. S-53 of 2024
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
1. For order on office objection “A”.
2. For orders on M.A No.5215/2024. (E/A)
3. For hearing of main case.
26-02-2025
Mr. Abdul Rehman A. Bhutto, advocate for the applicant.
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Khalid Hussain Shahani J:- By means of the present Criminal Revision Application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 09.08.2024, rendered by the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Kamber, in Criminal Complaint No.41/2024, pertaining to an offence under Section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, whereby the applicant’s complaint was dismissed.
02. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant claims ownership of the disputed property through a sale agreement executed in her favor by her father on 28-02-2009. This claim is substantiated by official reports from the Mukhtiarkar Revenue Taluka Warrah and the SHO/inquiry officer PS Warrah, which affirm the applicant’s proprietary interest. It is further argued that the impugned order, dismissing the applicant’s complaint, is a legal nullity as it is predicated on mere assumptions rather than a substantive appraisal of evidence. Counsel submits that, in light of authoritative pronouncements by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, particularly in cases interpreting the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, a court must safeguard the rights of individuals unlawfully deprived of possession. The failure of the learned trial court to acknowledge the significance of documentary evidence, coupled with its reliance on speculative reasoning, necessitates intervention by this Court in the interest of justice and fair adjudication.
03. The preamble of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, underscores the legislative intent to provide a robust legal framework aimed at safeguarding the rights of lawful owners and occupiers of immovable properties from unlawful or forcible dispossession by encroachers and land grabbers. The Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in its authoritative pronouncements, has consistently held that the object of this statute is to ensure the protection of legal ownership and possession from being usurped through illegal means. It has been emphasized that courts must interpret the provisions of this Act in a manner that upholds the rule of law and prevents property-related disputes from being exploited by unscrupulous elements. The Supreme Court, in various landmark judgments, has ruled that dispossession without due process of law is a grave violation of fundamental rights and those rightful owners and lawful occupants must be restored to possession where unlawful encroachment has been established. The Act serves as a remedial measure to address the issue of land grabbing and unauthorized possession, ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done in property disputes.
04. Section 5(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, delineates the procedural mechanism for investigation into allegations of illegal dispossession, thereby ensuring that the matter is subjected to a thorough and fair inquiry before proceeding further. Sub-section (2) of the same provision mandates, once the court has taken cognizance of the case, it shall conduct the trial on a day-to-day basis, with a strict obligation to render a decision within sixty days. This provision serves to prevent unnecessary delays and expedites justice, as recognized by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in various precedents, where it has been observed that prolonged litigation in matters of illegal dispossession often results in irreparable harm to the aggrieved party. The Supreme Court has further held that any deviation from this prescribed timeline must be accompanied by cogent reasons, as mere administrative constraints do not justify delays in the dispensation of justice. The legislative intent behind this provision is to ensure swift adjudication so that rightful owners and lawful occupants of properties are not subjected to protracted legal battles that could potentially enable encroachers and land grabbers to retain unlawful possession under the guise of legal technicalities.
05. The record indicates that, as per the inquiry report submitted by the Investigation Officer, four shops were found constructed, along with a house under construction, in the possession of the proposed accused. Notably, the report does not establish that the applicant had, at any point, maintained possession of the property or had been unlawfully dispossessed by the proposed accused. This fact is further corroborated by the report dated 13-07-2024, submitted by the Mukhtiarkar Revenue Taluka Warrah, which explicitly states that the property in question has remained in the possession of the proposed accused, Saban, for the past 10 to 12 years.
06. Furthermore, as per the applicant’s own pleadings, she had vacated the village due to severe flooding and, upon her return, discovered that the proposed accused had constructed shops and was in the process of constructing a house on the disputed land. The applicant’s claim is based on a sale agreement allegedly executed in her favor by her father in 2009. However, in light of the principles lay down by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, mere reliance on a sale agreement, without demonstrating actual possession or a forcible dispossession in terms of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is insufficient to establish a valid claim.
07. Jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court has consistently maintained that, for an allegation of illegal dispossession to hold weight, the claimant must establish:
(i) Lawful ownership or lawful possession at the time of the alleged dispossession,
(ii) Illegal and forceful dispossession by the accused party, and
(iii) A prima facie case supported by substantive evidence.
08. In the present matter, the applicant has failed to fulfill these essential criteria, as neither her possession nor her alleged forcible dispossession has been substantiated through reliable evidence. Consequently, the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect warranting interference by this Court. Therefore, the instant Criminal Revision Application, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed in limine along with all pending applications.
JUDGE
S.Ashfaq/-