1. ' MUNIB AHMED KAHN, J.---Through this revision, applicants have challenged the order dated 16-11- 2007 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur under sections 3 & 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the Act), whereby he ordered the police to obtain the possession from the applicants/accused and hand over it to the complainant/respondent No,1 Ghulam Muhammad.
2. ' The story in nutshell is that the respondent No,1 filed complaint under the Act before the learned Sessions Judge stating therein that he has acquired land measuring 12-28 acres in different survey numbers in Deh Ghulam Goth, Tapa Sangrar, Taluka Rohri, District Sukkur, and since the accused persons were not happy to sole ownership of the complainant as they themselves wanted to purchase the said land, therefore, they forcibly occupied the same on 9-6-2007 at 8-00 a.m.
3. Through armed force and remained in possession. The accused resisted by filing their objections and stated that the land belonged to Muhammad Idrees who promised to sell the land to them, but the sale-deed could not be executed due to some problem in respect to the appearance of the parties on given time at the given place. The possession of the accused has further been clarified in their objections as they have stated that 12-28 acres of land was promised by its owner to be sold to one Ghulam Muhammad, who agreed to sell the land in dispute in favour of Qaimuddin Bajkani and that Bajkani orally agreed to sell the land in favour of the accused Muhammad Ibrahim.
4. ' The trial Court acting in terms of S. 5 of the Act deputed the S.H.O. To enquire into the matter while report from Mukhtiarkar was also sought. The S.H.O. Submitted his report and the same has been taken by the Court in following words:- "The report was called from the SHO, Police Station, Dubar who in his report dated 13-7-2007 submitted that the aforementioned accused have occupied the land of the complainant, to which the dispute is going on in between the complainant and accused."
5. ' Another report called from Mukhtiarkar (Revenue) was also taken on record and gist of the same has been recorded by the trial Court as follows:-- "The Mukhtiarkar (Revenue) Rohri was also directed to submit his report, who in his report dated 15- 11-2007 has submitted that the disputed land is owned by the complainant Ghulam Muhammad according to the Entry No,124 dated 22-11-2005 of Form VII-B, who has purchased the said land through registered sale deed from Muhammad Awais and. Shah Zaman Khoso."
6. ' Learned trial Court observed that as per report of Mukhtiarkar, the accused persons are cultivating the land since 2005-06 while there is no entry in their name, hence their possession is illegal while the complainant is owner and his name is recorded vide Entry No,124 dated 22-11-2005 of Form VII- B. It is observed by the Court that the complainant Ghulam Muhammad purchased the said land through registered sale-deed from Muhammad Awais and. Shah Zaman Khoso. The trial Court also observed that accused's claim has no force as they are relying upon the simple sale agreements dated 13-1-2005 and 6-7-2004 which are not either registered documents nor proper authentication is attached with them.
7. ' Learned counsel for the applicants has stressed that since the accused were in possession and they were claiming the land through some sale agreements, therefore, the matter to be decided like a civil suit to ascertain the truth of the factual position brought before the Court. He further submits that the trial before the Sessions Judge would have been proceeded in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code, therefore, evidence would have been recorded after framing of charge, but that has not been done, therefore approach of the learned Judge is contrary to law. He as relied upon 2008 YLR 1044.
8. ' On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant has stated that they are legal owner on the basis of registered documents which have been recorded in the record of Mukhtiarkar while the accused are claiming on the basis of oral agreements which have no legal force nor any evidentiary value, therefore, if the documents is apparently .Contrary to law then law has to proceed summarily, as provided under the Act. Learned counsel further submits that the oral agreement dated 13-1-2005 is neither properly stamped document nor is registered and is also contrary to the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. He submits that under the Act, the trial Court has proceeded properly and has passed the order.
9. ' Learned Additional Advocate General has supported the order of the trial Court by arguing that apparently accused have not come to the Court wih clean hands as their very basis is dubious and does not provide them any place to stand. He submits that when one is claiming contrary to law then the law cannot assist him.
10. ' After hearing the learned counsel I have observed that the trial Court, before passing impugned order, has acted in accordance with section 5 of the Act and called the report from the Officer Incharge of Police Station to investigate the matter. In addition to the report of investigating officer trial Court further checked the ownership of, the complaint by calling report from Mukhtiarkar and after being satisfied in respect of the ownership of the complainant as well as illegal possession of the ownership of the complainant as well as illegal possession of the accused it proceeded and passed the impugned order. It can be gathered from the provisions of the above Act that certain relieves have been provided against menace of illegal activities of the land grabbers and since this crime is assuming alarming position, therefore, this Act A authorizes the trial Court to proceed summarily and with this intention short limit of time for every stage of the proceedings has been provided under section 5 of the Act. There is nothing for recording of evidence but by virtue of section 9 of the Act it has been provided that provisions of Criminal Procedure Code shall apply to the proceedings. If we look at the Criminal Procedure Code then we find that in that Act, there is Chapter-XXII in respect to the summary trial and section 260 of that Act provides as to for what offence summary trial can be taken up. The said section also provides action by the Court in summary way against house trespass provided under section 448 of P.P.C. And it is well-known that prior to the Illegal Dispossession Act (I.D.A), people were resorting to the possession under the said section 448 of P.P.C. Besides filing civil suit for possession. Although the Illegal Dispossession Act does not specifically provide any procedure or way of investigation but directs the Court to proceed from day to day to decide the case within 60 days, therefore, it will be advisable that normal procedure provided for other type of criminal cases should not be forced upon the Court trying the B offences under the. Illegal Dispossession Act. The procedure which can be applied and has been pointed out by section 9 of the Illegal Dispossession Act can be only in respect to the issuance of the notices, issuance of warrants, recording conviction and commit the offender to the prison etc, but it cannot be stretched to the extent that abnormal delay should be resulted and very purpose of the Act should fail. In the instant case, the complainant is relying upon the registered documents in his favour which also appear in the record-of-right before Mukhtiarkar, therefore, this Court can take judicial notice of that registered documents under Articles 111 and 112 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and in absence of contrary evidence that document is to be applied with force. On the other hand, the applicants are simply relying on the agreements of which beneficiary has promised to sell the land to the accused persons. The said agreements when come in conflict with the registered documents, lose it's sanctity. In such circumstances accused persons have no locus standi to stand on, therefore their defence was rightly rejected by the trial Court and since. They are again stressing instant revision on the basis of that documents, therefore, this revision seems to be meritless and is dismissed with cost of Rs,20,000 to be deposited by the accused (applicants of this application) within seven days with the Additional Registrar of this Court towards Benevolent Fund of the High Court employees.
11. ' The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the punishment could have been provided by the trial Court to the accused persons, as provided under section 3 of the Act, I find that the proceedings before the Sessions Court have not culminated finally. Learned trial Court has asked for report from the S.H.O. Within ten days after putting the complainant in possession of the land, therefore, complainant to wait for further progress by the trial Court in the matter. This revision stand disposed of.