' The instant Intra-Court Appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 proceeds against the order, dated 15-3-2007 passed in Writ Petition No,1207 of 2007, whereby the learned Single Judge in Chambers dismissed the said writ petition in the light of directions of the learned Full Bench of this Court in Zahoor Ahmad and 5 others v. The State and 3 'others PLD 2007 Lah.
231.
2. Brief facts succinctly required for the disposal of this appeal are that according to the appellants, there was a series of long drawn litigation between the appellants and respondent No,3 which was ultimately decided by the Honourable Supreme Court and the appellants had succeeded and had obtained possession of the property in dispute , through execution warrants. It is further stated that Gulzar Ahmad respondent No,3 in order to grab the property of the appellants again illegally dispossessed the appellants on 25-9-2006 which compelled the appellants not only to file a suit for restoration of possession under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act on 17-10-2006 but also file a complaint under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 on 16-10-2006 simultaneously before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lodhran as well as the learned Sessions, Judge, Lodhran against , respondent No,3 Gulzar Ahmad.. The complaint of the appellants was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lodhran, vide order, dated 8-1-2007, in which the learned Additional Sessions Judge had held that "the Civil Court is the best forum to resolve the cimtroversy, between the parties about the disputed property as the petitioners (appellants) and respondent are co-owners in the same Khewat. The petitioners-complainant (appellants) may also avail the remedy of partition, if so advised". Being aggrieved of the said order, the appellants filed Writ Petition No,1207 of 2007, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers vide order dated 15-3-2007, in which it was held that the appellants have been involved in 'a series of civil litigation earlier upto the Honourable Supreme Court where they have been declared to be the exclusive owners of the disputed property and they had through execution proceedings obtained the possession of the disputed property. Therefore, in the light of directions of the learned Full Bench 'Of this Court in Zahoor Ahmad's case PLD 2007 Lah. 231, the learned Single Judge in 'Chamber dismissed the writ petition, holding that: "The very complaint filed by the petitioners under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was neither maintainable nor the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the said complaint, can be declared as without lawful authority."
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge in Chambers erred in law as well as on facts in interpreting the judgment rendered by the learned Full Bench of this Court in Zahoor Ahmad's case PLD 2007 Lah. 231 and that the learned single Judge in Chambers did not take into consideration all the documentary evidence which discloses that respondent No,3 committed the offence under Illegal Dispossession Act by grabbing property in dispute of the appellants.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order.
5. The appellants being exclusive owners had been dispossessed by respondent No,3 from the disputed property. The appellants had during the course of arguments also placed on record a number of documents indicating the previous litigation between the parties upto the level of the Honourable Supreme Court. The 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, and it has been held in the judgment of 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 that:-- "Correct utilization of law---Guidelines/directions provided to all the Courts of Session in the Province of the Punjab.
"(i) The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 applies to dispossession from immovable property only by property grabbers/Qabza Groups/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.
(ii) The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 does not apply to run of the mill cases of alleged dispossession from immovable properties by ordinary persons having no credentials or antecedents of being property grabbers/Qabza Groups/land mafia, i.e. Cases of disputes over possession of immovable properties between co-owners or co-sharers, between landlords and tenants, between persons claiming possession on the basis of inheritance, between persons vying for possession on the basis of competing title documents,. Contractual agreements or Revenue Record or cases with a background of an on-going private dispute over the relevant property.
(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---All the Courts in the Province of the Punjab are directed to examine all the complaints under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 pending before them and to dismiss all those complaints forthwith which are found to be not maintainable in terms of the interpretation of the said law rendered by us through the present judgment.
(b) Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005--- ----Scope and applicability---Clarified---A person has to be a property grabber or a member of a Qabza Group for land mafia before he can be proceeded against under the said Act---In the case of an individual it must be the manner of execution of his design which may expose him as a property grabber and in the case of a Qabza Group or land mafia it is not the present allegation which should try to portray, depict or establish him as a property grabber but he must already be known, acknowledged or established property grabber---Provisions of the said Act do not apply to run of the mill and common place dispossession from immovable properties by ordinary persons having no such credentials or antecedents or employing no such organized and calculated strategy or using no force or deceit."
' The learned Single Judge in Chambers after proper appreciation of the documents and facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view the directions and guidelines provided in the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Zahoor Ahmad's case PLD 2007 Lah. 231 rightly dismissed the writ petition of the appellants, holding that 'the very B complaint filed by the petitioners (appellants) under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was neither maintainable nor the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the said complaint, can be declared as without lawful authority".
6. In view of the above circumstances and keeping in view the directions given by the learned Full Bench of this Court in the judgment of Zahoor Ahmad's case PLD 2007 Lah. 231, we see no reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber and dismiss this Intra-Court Appeal in limine.