IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,
LARKANA
Crl. Revision Appln. No. S- 65 of 2020.
Muhammad Saleh Khan Lolai. …………...Applicant.
Versus
Ghulam Sarwar Lak,
& others. ……..….Respondents.
Mr. Javed Ahmed Soomro, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Ahmed Khan, Advocate for private respondents.
Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General.
Date of hearing: 10.11.2022.
Date of order: 10.11.2022.
ORDER
Amjad Ali Sahito, J- Through this revision application, the applicant has assailed the order dated 17.11.2020, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero (District Larkana), 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 complainant is owner of 263-3/8 square feet bearing C. S. No.781/71, situated in Ward-B Ratodero. The city survey record/ Extract from the property stands in his name and such it was gifted from Abdullah through statement. ON 08.10.2020, at 06.00 p.m. the complainant along with witnesses namely Ghulam Murtaza and Haji Ahmed Khan were available at plot, where accused No.1 to 4 came on two motorcycles along with deadly weapons and had occupied on the plot. They have been dispossessed by issuing threats of dire consequences.”
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 approach relevant forum.
It would be conducive to reproduce the relevant paragraph of the impugned, which reads as under:
“I have heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record carefully placed on the record. The city survey record/ extract from the property and registered sale deed reveals that the complainant had sold out 1938-0 square feet to Shah Jahan through registered sale deed dated 17.5.2019 and also sold out 188-8 square yards to Manzoor Lak and 200-0 square yards to Ghulam Sarwar Lak through registered sale deed dated 09.04.1996 and 04.06.1996 respectively. Even complainant filed F.C. Suit No.095/2014 and F.C. Suit No. 152/2015 in the Court of learned II-Senior Civil Judge, Larkana, but plaint of the suit was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC vide order dated 03.12.2015. Hence in this case complainant alleged after about 05 years from the dismissal of plaint that on 08.10.2020, the accused had dispossessed him. It is crystal clear that complainant has suppressed the real facts and has diverted the civil nature dispute into criminal liability which is abuse of process of law. However, reports of SHO and Mukhtiarkar, does not reveal that accused No.1 to 4 belong to Qabza group or land mafia. In this regard it is held in 2011 YLD-677, contents and objectives of Act 2005 would be attracted only upon the said persons and same does not apply on the persons who have no credentials or antecedents of being property grabbers or being members or a Qabza group or land mafia. In view of above facts and circumstances, I find that a complaint under Section 3, 4 and 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is devoid of merits. Consequent same is hereby dismissed. However, both parties are at liberty to approach with revenue forum for demarcation of plot/ redressal of their grievance in accordance with law.”
Heard learned counsel for applicant, and learned counsel for private respondents as well as learned D.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, though they have no any right or title over property in question and that they have illegally occupied over it.
Conversely, the learned D.P.G. assisted by learned Advocate for private respondents while referring to the report of the SHO and the Mukhtiarkar concerned 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 complainant had sold out the plot and civil suit was also pending in the Court having jurisdiction. The report of SHO and the Mukhtiar also does not reveal that the accused/ private respondents belong to Qabza group or land mafia. 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) have been in possession of premises in question by virtue of registered sale deed etc. 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