' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner has assailed the orders of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Jhang, dated 5-6-2006 whereby the complaint filed by him under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint under the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act on the allegations that respondents Nos. 2 to 17 on 28-9-2005 had forcibly taken over possession of the land measuring 67 Kanals, 7 Marlas belonging to the petitioner. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge sought a report from the S.H.O. Police Station Massan District Jhang in which the stand taken by the petitioner was affirmed and consequently respondents Nos. 2 to 17 were summoned by the Court to stand trial. After framing of the charge, to which the said respondents pleaded not guilty, the learned trial Court proceeded to record the evidence of the parties and at the conclusion of the trial dismissed the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the judgment of the learned Court was against the law and facts; that the learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence produced by the petitioner; that the impugned judgment was not a speaking one and as the same had been passed in complete disregard of the evidence it had resulted in miscarriage of justice and that the learned Court had committed illegality by ignoring the report submitted by the S.H.O.
And the Halqa Patwari and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
4. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the documents placed on the file.
5. It would be appropriate to reproduce para. 7 of the impugned judgment which reads as under:-- "The above said report carries no weight in the eye of law unless the person who has made this report appears before the Court to corroborate the same. The complainant has closed his evidence without production of S.H.O. Before this Court as witness, consequently the report wherein neither any date ofoccurrence has been specified nor the facts of the occurrence as alleged by complainant of this document appears before the Court and face the test of cross-examination but this witness has also not been adduced by the complainant in the prosecution evidence and under the circumstances the presumption cannot be drawn in favor of complainant. The complainant of the case has admitted during this cross-examination that his possession had never been recorded in any of the Khasra Girdawaries. He has further admitted that Girdawari of the land for the year, 2005 has been recorded in the name of accused and that his alleged sowing of Maiz crop has never been recorded. He has also admitted that according to Khasra Girdawari, the accused are in possession of the land. He has also not denied the fact that suit filed by accused for permanent injunction regarding the same suit-land is pending before learned Civil Judge, Jhang. The above said statement of complainant wherein he has admitted manifestation of accused in the Khasra Girdawari and issuance of temporary injunction in favor of accused by a Civil Court, does not lend any support to the case of prosecution. The resume of my above discussion is that the complainant has failed to prove beyond shadow of doubt that accused 16 in number illegally occupied the land mentioned in the complaint on 28-9-2005. The offence under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 along with delivery of possession is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years and fine along with compensation in accordance with the revisions of section 544 of Cr.P.C. Hence the evidence required to prove this case should be of the same standard as envisioned by the Higher Courts in other heinous offences, so all accused are hereby acquitted in this case by extending them benefit of doubt. Their sureties are relieved of their obligation in this case."
6. From the above, it is evident that the petitioner in his cross-examination admitted that his possession had never been recorded in any of the Khasra Girdawaries and has further accepted the fact that the Khasra Girdawari of the land in question for the year, 2005 had been recorded in the name of accused/respondents Nos. 2 to 17. It has further been accepted by the petitioner that according to the Khasra Girdawari respondents Nos. 2 to 17 are in possession of the land. Further, the record reveals that a civil suit is pending between the parties in which an injunctive order has been passed in favor of the accused by the learned Civil Court.. In the nutshell the petitioner has not been able to substantiate his claim of being illegally dispossessed by the said respondents from the property in question. Further, the petitioner hasfailed to bring on the record any evidence to the effect that the respondents had the antecedents of property grabbers or that they belonged to a "Qabza Group" which is a sine qua non for the applicability of the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. Reference is made to the case of Zahoor Ahmad and 5 others v. The State and 3 others (W.P. No,11952 of 2006 decided on 19-1-2007) PLD 2007 Lah. 231 wherein it has been observed by a Full Bench of this Court that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 applies to the dispossession from immovable property only by property grabbers/Qabza Group/Land Mafia and a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 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. The complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act would not be entertained when the matter of possession of the relevant property is being regulated by Civil or Revenue Courts. The facts and circumstances of the case reveal that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute regarding possession of the property in question and the same is also subject-matter of a civil suit which is still pending adjudication before a Civil Court in which an injunctive order has also been passed. It has been observed in the judgment referred to above that in such-like cases the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act shall not be applicable. Thus, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was justified in dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner as the provisions of section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act are prima facie not attracted in the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order calling for interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.
7. For what has been stated above, this petition has no force which stands dismissed in limine.