THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI
Criminal Appeal No. 603 of 2021
Appellant: Nemo
for Mst. Gulzar Begum
The State: Through
Ms. Rubina Qadir, Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh
Date of hearing: 03.10.2022
Date of judgment: 03.10.2022
J U D G M E N T
IRSHAD ALI SHAH,
J- The facts in brief
necessary for disposal of instant appeal are that the appellant claiming to be
owner of subject property alleging her dispossession there from by the private
respondents filed a direct complaint for their prosecution under the provisions
of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, it was dismissed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-VI, Karachi South vide order dated 20.09.2021, which is impugned
by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant appeal.
2. Since
lasting hearing, none is coming forward to advance arguments on behalf of the
appellant, therefore, it was decided that the instant appeal to be disposed of
on merits after hearing learned DPG for the state, who supported the impugned
order.
3. Heard
arguments and perused the record.
4. Learned
trial Court has dismissed the direct complaint of the appellant by observing that;
“5. From perusal of complaint and its
annexure, it reveals that the deceased father of complainant Mst. Gulzar Begum
was the occupant/ owner of MALBA of plot No. MAC-55/394, ad-measuring 80 square
yards consists upon two rooms and two shops. After death of her father, the
complainant and her mother were become owner of it. Later on mother o
complainant had gifted her share to the present complainant. The KMC had also
issued regularization of the aforesaid plot in the name of her deceased father.
So also the electric meter was also installed in his name. It is also a matter
of record that respondent No.1 Javed Inayat Masih is real son of the
complainant and lease holder of disputed property. In this respect he has
produced relevant documents. Complainant in the instant complaint has neither
mentioned date of alleged illegal occupation of respondent No.1 and 2 and in
this regard no proof is produced nor denied the lase granted in favour of
respondent No.1 by the competent authority.
6. Object of Act 2005 is to protect the
lawful owners and occupiers from their illegal and forcible dispossession and
prevent this dispossession of a lawful owner/occupier through illegal means.
Act is not meant to decide the ownership of the property in dispute which can
only be decide by a Civil Court (2008 YLR 2259, 2015 YLR 715). “
5. No
wrong is noticed in the observations recorded by learned trial Court leading to
dismissal of the direct complaint of the appellant, which may justify this
Court to make interference with the impugned order; consequently, the instant
appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.
JUDGE