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