Through this petition the petitioners have challenged the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Okara, whereby on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the learned trial Court as an interim measure under Section 7 ibid had directed the petitioners to handover possession of the disputed land to Respondent No. 1 within 15 days and on his failure to do so SHO Police Station Chuchak was directed to recover the possession of the land in question from the petitioners and handover the same to Respondent No. 1.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/Respondent No. 1 had purchased property measuring 16 Kanals in Khasra Nos. 17/19, 20, 21/1 vide Mutation No. 1179 dated 30.6.2006. The petitioners on 16.7.2006 alongwith two other persons forcibly took over the possession of the land, and destroyed the standing crop of the said respondent. Respondent No. 1 being aggrieved filed a complaint under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 which was entrusted to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Okara. The learned Court directed the local police to submit a report and keeping in view the documents placed by the parties on the record as well as the contents of the report submitted by the police wherein it was specifically stated that the land in question was owned and -possessed by Respondent No. 1 and that the petitioners had forcibly taken over possession of the land in question on 16.7.2006 and had cultivated the same, as an interim measure under Section 7 sub-section (1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 directed the petitioners to handover the possession of the property in question to Respondent No. 1 within fifteen days and in case they failed to do so, the SHO Police Station Chuchak was directed to recover the possession from the petitioners and to handover the same to the said respondent. The case was fixed for further proceedings for 5.9.2006.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the possession of the petitioners regarding Khasra No. 17/19 was established as the petitioners had cultivated the land in Rabi 2006. Hence the learned trial Court had erred in law in directing the petitioners to handover possession of the land in question to Respondent No. L
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents placed on the record including the impugned orders passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Okara dated 10.8.2006. It has been observed by me that the impugned order is an interim order and not a final order which could be brought under challenge in the constitutional jurisdiction of this. Court. A perusal of para 5 of the impugned order reveals that the learned Court had taken into consideration the documents produced by the parties and the police report submitted by the S.I./Incharge Chouki Chuchak dated 1.8.2006. The Khasra Girdawari from Kharif 2003 till Rabi 2006 shows that Respondent No. 1 was in possession of Khasra No. 17/20, 21/1, which only in Rabi 2006 regarding Khasra No. 17/19 possession of the petitioners has been shown. No explanation has been given by the petitioners regarding taking over of possession of land from Respondent No. 1 Bearing Khasra Nos. 17/20 and 21/1. The documents on the record clearly show that the said respondent is the owner of Khasra No. 17/19 which is duly supported by the report submitted by the local police which shows that the respondent had been dispossessed from the land forcibly by the petitioners.
Further it has been noticed that the petitioners have failed to establish any title in the disputed property whereas on the contrary the title of the property in question in favour of Respondent No. 1 is established as also her possession. Since the learned trial Court was fully competent to grant interim relief in terms of Section 7 sub-section (1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, as such no illegality has been committed by the learned Court as prima facie the documents placed on the record and the report submitted by the local police support the contentions made by Respondent No. 1 in the complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any jurisdictional error committed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by passing the order impugned.
Even otherwise interim order passed by the Court cannot be challenged by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court as stated earlier. A profitable reference can be made to the case of Abdul Majeed us. Noor Muhammad and 2 others (PLD 2006 Lahore 649).
5. For what has been discussed above, there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine.