' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner obtained possession of a room in the disputed house under an agreement of sale dated 14-8-2005 from respondent No,2 to 4. After payment of Rs,3,00,000 being half of the total sale price Rs,6,00,000. Apprehending foul-play at the hands of respondents Nos.2 to 4, the petitioner filed a suit and was granted injunction by the learned Civil Court.
2. Respondents Nos.2 to 4 after having connived with the police, got him arrested at Police Station.
During petitioner's custody, respondents Nos.2 to 4 forcibly took possession of the disputed Room.
3. The petitioner filed a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 before the respondent No,l. A report was called from the police, which did not support the version of the petitioner.
According to the learned counsel the prosecution evidence was recorded but on application of the respondent the impugned order was passed on 15-2-2007 whereby application of the petitioner under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was dismissed on pretext of a Full Bench judgment of this Court.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel of the respondents submits that civil suit was filed by the petitioner on 12-5-2006 which is still pending; next date of hearing is fixed as 8-7-2008. According to him petitioner had also filed a contempt petition, which is also pending, therefore, the impugned order is legal and consistent with judgment passed by a Full Bench of this Court. Reference as PLD 2007 Lahore 231.
5. Preamble of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (XI of 2005) reads as under:-- ' "Where it is expedient to protect the lawful owners and occupiers of immovable properties from their illegal or forcible dispossession by the property grabbers."
' Thus the object of the Act of 2005 is to protect the lawful owners and occupiers from their illegal or forcible dispossession. The law is not meant to decide the ownership of the property. Similarly, section 3 of the Act says:-- ' "No one shall enter into or upon any property to dispossess, grab, control or occupy it without having any lawful authority to do so with the intention to dispossess, grab, control or occupy the property from owners or occupier of such property."
' The agreement to sell dated 14-8-2005 "Annexure-A" clearly mentions that possession of the room was handed over to the present petitioner by respondent No,2 therefore, there is no doubt that possession of the petitioner was legal and undisputed. The same fact is also verified from the evidence of the petitioner recorded before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned counsel for the respondents could not show as to how possession was taken by the respondents on 11-12-2005 or which lawful means were adopted to occupy the disputed property? As noted above, the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 does not allow dispossession of a lawful owner/occupier through illegal means etc. The contempt application filed by the petitioner, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents, also indicates that petitioner was not dispossessed through lawful means. According to the recent judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "Rahim Tahir v. Ahmed Jan and 2 others" (PLD 2007 SC 423); " The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is a special enactment, which has been promulgated to discourage the land grabbers and to protect the right of owner and the lawful occupant of the property as against the unauthorized and illegal occupants." The above judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court clearly holds that the purpose of the Act is to discourage the unauthorized and illegal dispossession E of authorized occupants, owners etc. The question before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was whether the petitioner was dispossessed legally or illegally by the respondents. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was not required to determine the ownership of the property, F which can only be determined by the Civil Court where the matter is still pending.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not determine the question pending before him i.e, whether petitioner being occupant was dispossessed though legal means? Instead he passed the impugned order while observing:-- ' "It is an admitted fact, showing from the contents of the complaint, that there was an agreement to sell between the respondents and complainant regarding the disputed property/room, hence the instant dispute relates to the contractual liability and also falls within the ambit of the judgment of Honourable Full Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore.
' The impugned order clearly omits any observation regarding possession/ dispossession of the petitioner. Thus, it seems that the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to apply his mind to the real issue as well as scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.
6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 15-2-2007 is set aside, the complaint of the petitioner shall be deemed pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who will decide the same taking full account of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, Full Bench judgment of this Court as referred to by the learned Additional Sessions Judge himself and the above mentioned judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court. As far as the pendency of suits before the learned Civil Court is concerned, this judgment will not affect the said proceedings, which shall be decided on its own merits. Disposed of.