' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---Muhammad Aslam Shami son of Sheikh Abdul Aziz, the petitioner, by filing the instant revision petition has impugned the order dated 26-1-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby he had dismissed his complaint under section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, filed against Zulfiqar Butt, Maj. Ibrar Hussain Shah, Zaida Butt (Zahid Pervaiz) and Hamid Butt (Hamid Javed), respondents Nos.1 to 4, respectively.
2. Concisely the facts giving rise to instant petition, according to the contents thereof, were that the petitioner was owner of property bearing No, S-86-R-429, Ferozepur Road, Nasirabad, Lahore measuring three kanals on the basis of registered sale-deed dated 1-11-2005; that respondents Nos.1 to 4 were illegally and forcibly occupying the said property; that the petitioner filed a petition under section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 before the learned Additional Sessions judge, Lahore praying therein that the respondents be dealt with in accordance with law and the possession of the property be delivered to him; the said learned Judge proceeded to dismiss the same by virtue of the impugned order.
1. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record available on the file. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had initially requisitioned a report from the S.H.O., who had reported that the respondents were in possession of the said property for the last more than fifteen years and this fact was also admitted by the petitioner. Keeping in view the said situation, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had rightly come to the conclusion that the complaint-was not maintainable because the Act, where under it had been filed, was promulgated in the year 2005.
Section 3(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 creates a new offence, the punishment whereof is prescribed in its subsection (2). This penal part of the statute is to be interpreted strictly and an illegal dispossession as contemplated in section 3(1) can be punished only if it had taken place after promulgation of the said Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out that the impugned order is perverse, arbitrary or fanciful, so as to merit interference by this Court.
2. For what has been stated above, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which has been found to be a legal and well- reasoned order. There is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.