' TARIQ SHAMIM, J:- Through this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15-7-2006 passed by the learned Additional. Sessions Judge, Ferozewala, whereby private complaint filed by the petitioner under sections 3/4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who claims to be the owner of 14 Kanals, 16 Marlas of land sold to him by Asghar Ali vide Mutation No.1412 dated 21-12-2004 apprehending that respondents Nos.1 and 2 would disturb his possession over the property, filed a suit for permanent injunction. The learned Civil Judge vide order dated 13-6-2006 granted status quo order to the extent of possession of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, on 14-6-2006, respondents Nos.1 and 2 along with some other persons interfered in his lawful possession and dispossessed him from his land. The petitioner filed an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Seeking registration of a criminal case against the accused which was disposed of on 20-6-2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala, with a direction to the S.H.O. To look into the complaint of the petitioner and to proceed strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner approached the S.H.O, who declined to register a case against the accused-respondents and consequently, the petitioner filed a complaint under sections 3/4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 which was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide the order impugned in this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was lawful owner of the property in question and had been illegally dispossessed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 who belong to a Qabza Group; that the petitioner was dispossessed during the pendency of the status quo order issued by the learned civil Court in a suit filed by the petitioner and thus, the respondents have violated the injunctive order issued on 13-6-2006; that the learned trial Court without minutely perusing the record had passed the order haphazardly which was based on conjectures and surmises and that the learned Additional' Sessions Judge had wrongly dismissed the complaint on the ground that no date of dispossession was mentioned by the petitioner in -the complaint.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2 contended that the petitioner filed a civil suit in which status quo order had been issued by the civil Court and if there was any violation of the status quo order the petitioner had the remedy by filing a contempt petition befOre the learned Court; that this Court was seized of Intra Court Appeal in which allotment in the name of Mst. Rahmi and subsequent sale including the sale in favour of the petitioner had been challenged; that the entries of Khasra Girdawari and Jamabandi relied upon by the petitioner were fake and had been got recorded in collusion with the Patwari; that the alleged allotment in the name of Mst. Rahmi was wholly illegal and similarly Mutation No.672 in the name of Mst. Kishwar Sultana and Mst. Anjum Sultana were illegal and ineffective; that consequently the sale made by Mst. Kishwar Sultana etc., in favour of Muhammad Arif and Kaneez Begum and subsequent sale by Muhammad Arif through Mutation No.137 in favour of Asghar Ali was bad and ineffective; that the sale made by Asghar Ali in favour of the petitioner was also illegal and based on fraud which was evident from the fact that the alleged sale in favour of the petitioner. Took place on 21-12-2004 whereas in the Register Haqdaran for the year 2001/2002 the petitioner had been shown as full owner of the property, therefore, entries of Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari were false and incorrect regarding which the answering respondents had made an application for correction of entries in the revenue record on which Tehsildar concerned had reported that the entries made in Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari were bogus; that it was proved beyond any doubt that the father of respondents Nos.1 and 2 had been in possession of the suit land since long and, therefore, the allegation of illegal dispossession of the petitioner from the land on 14-6-2006 was based on a false claim. Lastly stated that the petitioner had failed to show or establish that respondents Nos.1 and 2 belong to a Qabza Group or had history of illegally dispossessing people from their properties and keeping in view the observations made in the case of Zahoor Ahmad and 5 others v.
The State and 3 others (PLD 2007 Lah. 231), the private complaint was misconceived and, therefore, not maintainable.
5. I have heard the learned counsel as well as the learned Assistant Advocte General.
6. The sale of the land in question took place in favour of Nazir Ahmad petitioner on 21-12-2004 whereas in the Register Haqdaran for the years 2001/2002 the petitioner is shown as full owner of the property. Prima facie the entries in, the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari relied upon by the petitioner in support of his case appear to be false. The report of the Tehsildar dated 12-7-2006 on an application filed by the respondents for correction of entries in the revenue record, reveals that the father of respondents Nos.1 and 2, namely, Muhammad Akbar has been in possession of the suit-land for the last about 25 to 30 years. Even the report submitted by the S.H.O. On the application filed under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Does not advance the case of the petitioner in any manner.
7. Admittedly civil litigation is pending between the parties and the possession of the property in question is being regulated by the learned civil Court through an injunctive order. The petitioner in the complaint failed to disclose the date on which he was allegedly dispossessed by respondents Nos.1 and 2. Mere mentioning of the date of dispossession in a petition filed under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C, which has no nexus with the complaint, does not absolve the petitioner of his duty to mention the same in the private complaint.
8. Moreover, the allotment of land in favour of Mst. Rahmi, the original allottee, is sub judice before the civil Court as well as in Intra-Court Appeal No.557 of 2004. It is, therefore, apparent that the matter essentially pertains to possession of the property between two private parties: asserting their right of ownership on the basis of competing title documents.
9. Further, it has been observed that the petitioner has neither mentioned in the private complaint nor produced' any evidence before the learned trial Court to the effect that the respondents have the credentials or antecedents of property grabbers/Qabza Group/land mafia. A complaint under section 3 of. The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 can be entertained by a Court of Sessions 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 is groups to grab by force or deceit property to which they have no lawful, ostensible or justifiable claim and the same must be in a manner so as to expose the person as a' property grabber.
Moreover, the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was not designed to apply to ordinary cases relating to dispossession from immovable property where the aggrieved person has remedy available to him before the civil or the revenue Courts. Reliance is placed on the case of Zahoor Ahmad and 5 others v. The State and 3 others (PLD 2007 Lahore 231). The order impugned cannot, by any stretch of imagination be termed as illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful. It is well reasoned and based on correct appreciation of facts and proper application of law on the point.
10. Resultantly, this petition has no force which is dismissed. There shall be no C order as to costs.