' MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.---The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 8-1-2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran dismissing petitioners' complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.
2. The facts in brief are that according to the petitioner after long drawn litigation between the petitioners and respondent No,3 which ended in the Honourable Supreme Court the petitioner ultimately succeeded and obtained possession of the property in dispute through execution proceedings. However, Gulzar Ahmad respondent No,3 again illegally dispossessed the petitioner on 25-9-2006 which compelled the petitioner to file a complaint against him on 16-10-2006 under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The learned trial Court after requisitioning the report from the S.H.O. Concerned dismissed the said complaint on 8-1-2007 holding that the petitioners as well as respondent No,3 were co-owners in the same Khata, therefore, petitioners may avail the remedy of partition, if so advised.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the earlier round of litigation the petitioners were declared as exclusive owners of the disputed property and possession was also delivered to them through execution proceedings; therefore, the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge holding the parties as co-owners were not warranted by law. It is further argued that in the light of previous litigation which went up to the apex Court and the fact that petitioners obtained possession of the specific property, was sufficient to hold the petitioners as exclusive owners of the same and as the petitioners were illegally dispossessed from the suit-land, therefore, they rightly filed the complaint which should have been allowed and summary dismissal. Of the same was not warranted by law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed on record different documents, indicating previous litigation between the parties up to Honourable Supreme Court.
4. I have considered the above-noted arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the complaint filed by the petitioners and gone through the documents appended with this petition.
5. From perusal of the file and the documents annexed therewith, existence of previous litigation between the parties is established but the same would not be of any help to the petitioners for decision of the complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and for that matter only the contents of the complaint are to be gone into. Before proceeding further, I would like to point out that the learned Full Bench of this '- Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad and 5 others v. The State and 3 others PLD 2007 Lah. 231 while determining the vires of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 in para-7 (i) and (iii) declared as under:---
(i) The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 applies to dispossession from immovable property only by property grabbers/Qabza Group/land mafia. A complaint under the Illegal. Dispossession Act, 2005 can be entertained by a Court of Session only if some material exists showing involvement of the persons complained against in some previous activity connected with illegal dispossession from immovable property or the complaint demonstrates an organized or calculated effort by some persons operating individually or in groups to grab by force or deceit property to which they have no lawful, ostensible or justifiable claim. In the case of an individual it must be the manner of execution of his design which may expose him as a property grabber.
(iii) A complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 cannot be entertained where the matter of possession of the relevant'''. property is being regulated by a civil or revenue Court.
6. The complaint filed by the petitioners, if read in the light of above reproduced declarations of the learned Full Bench, leave no doubt in mind that same does not fulfil the, requirements for application of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, inasmuch as, there is not a remotest reference in the said complaint showing the respondent either as property grabber, or member of Qabza Group or land mafia. Further admittedly the petitioners purchased share of joint Khata and thus without seeking its partition from the competent forum as held by the Full Bench in para.7(ii) of the said judgment as reproduced above, they could not maintain the said complaint.
7. In the light of abovementioned reproduced directions of the learned Full Bench of this Court in "Zahoor Ahmad and 5 others v. The State and 3 others" (PLD 2007 Lahore 231), I am satisfied that the very complaint filed by the petitioners under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 before learned Additional Sessions Judge was neither maintainable nor the order passed by learned Sessions Judge dismissing the said complaint, can be declared as without lawful authority. This petition therefore, has no force and is dismissed in limine.