' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.--This constitutional petition assailed the order, dated 23-5-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Chakwal, to be declared illegal, void of no legal consequence, whereby petitioners were directed to put respondent No,1 in possession of the disputed property, within seven days.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that respondent No,1 on 6-3-2006 filed a complaint under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 with the allegations that the petitioners on 20-2-2005 illegally/forcibly dispossessed him from land measuring one kanal out of khasra No, 1446 of khewat No,1076 of Village Kallar Kahar District Chakwal. Petitioner appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and moved an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Whereas respondent No,1 filed an application under section 7 of the Act (ibid) for interim possession of the land in question.
3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, seized of the matter, after hearing the parties, disposed of three different applications, allowing the interim restoration of possession of respondents No,1, declining invocation of his jurisdiction under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Petitioners, thereafter, filed instant constitutional petition with the relief noted above. Respondents in response to notice by this Court appeared and were represented through their counsel.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Respondent No,1 had claimed ownership/possession over the disputed land on the basis of registered gift deed, dated 22-12-1994 from his father-in-law Mian Khan. In Para. 3 of the complaint by respondents Nos.1, he asserted that petitioners dispossessed him on 20-2-2006 in his absence and dispossession came to his knowledge on 4-3-2006. He did not plead/assert or bring any proof that petitioners were property grabbers or they belong to some Qabza Group/Land Mafia. In absence of any such allegation or proof, complaint under section 3 of the Illegal A Dispossession Act, 2005 could not have been entertained, processed or decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge because preamble of the Act (ibid) is explicit and is reproduced for convenience/ready reference and reads as under:-- "Where it is expedient to protect the lawful owners andoccupiers of immovable properties from their illegal or forcible dispossession therefrom by the property grabbers".
5. Beside the language of the preamble, a Full Bench of this Court has interpreted the term "Property Grabbers" used in the said Act as Qabza Group/Land Mafia and made it obligatory for the Court of Session to prima facie satisfy itself that the persons complained had the credentials/antecedents of property grabbing. In the case in hand, as noted above, there is no allegation of this kind against the petitioners thus, the impugned order directing return of possession to the respondents was coram non judice. Petitioners might have been forcibly dispossessed from the land in question but they have other remedies available to them under ordinary law of the land, as pointed out by the Full Bench of this Court in the case, above referred, in the case of Zahoor Ahmad and 5 others v. The State and 3 others PLD 2007 Lah. 231 to which they may have resort for restitution of their possession, if proved. Scan of record and impugned order revealed that dispute amongst the parties was correctly decided and jurisdiction under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was wrongly assumed/exercised.
6. For the reasons noted above, instant petition is bound to succeed and is accordingly accepted.
Impugned order, dated 23-5-2006 is declared to be void and non-existent in the eye of law. There will be no order as to costs.