1. ' MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.---Learned counsel have been heard and impugned order dated 27-5- 2008 has been perused which contains the factual position.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has purchased the plots through Sale Agreement dated 21-1-2000 from general attorney of Al-Abbass Housing Scheme and since then he is in possession of both the plots Nos.A-57 and A-58. He submits that the applicant is the owner and the basic dispute in respect to the title of the applicant or respondent is pending before the Board of Revenue which has passed a status quo order, while hearing an appeal against the District Officer (Revenue).
3. ' Learned counsel for the respondent No,2 submits that the respondent has purchased both the Plots Nos.57 and 58 in the year, 1977 from Al-Abbass Housing Scheme through Ali Bux vide a registered Sale-Deed which was registered on 20-7-1977 and same plots have wrongly been shown as Plots Nos.A-57 and A-58. He submits that due to different involvement, the respondent could not get the plot mutated before Mukhtiarkar and when in the year, 2001, he applied. For Sale Certificate then the applicant Shafi Muhammad raised frivolous objection on the basis of some forged sale agreement. The matter was heard by Mukhtiarkar (Revenue) and by his order dated 30-12-2006, objections of the applicant were rejected. The said order was taken to appeal but the District Officer (Revenue), by his order dated 20-1-2006, dismissed the appeal while the matter has been taken to the Board of Revenue which has ordered status quo in the matter during hearing.
4. ' Learned Assistant A.-G. Has also supported the findings of the Additional District Judge after going through the factual position which is being discussed today and is apparent on record. He further submits that apparently there is no wisdom for the Member Board of Revenue to upset the order of two lower forums on the ground of late filing of the documents for mutation and even if there was any lacking towards fulfilment of formalities then it cannot change the merit of the case as an old registered document cannot be overridden by simple stereo-type agreement.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties it appears that the respondent is claiming both plots in question through a Registered Sale Deed which is about 30 years old and until proved otherwise it is to be admitted as correct under Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Both the orders of Revenue Authorities are in favour of the respondent while Board of Revenue has directed for status quo. Since there was dispute in respect to the possession, therefore, matter was taken by the respondent to the District Judge Hyderabad, under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which has scrutinized the claims of the parties and has decided the issue in favour of the respondent.
6. ' On the other hand the applicant's contention is based on a Sale Agreement dated 21-1-2000 which is neither a registered document nor mode of payment has been mentioned in it. Such bigger amount, as allegedly paid under the agreement, are normally paid through Cheque or Pay Order which factor is missing. It is further being observed that the respondent is claiming plots No,57 and 58 while the applicant has claimed Plots Nos.A-57 and A-58 which numbers are quite distinct. This Court has also carried out inspection to ascertain the factual position at the site, according to which, applicant was found in possession which shows that the plots are same while both the parties are claiming them under different numbers. After inspection, contention of the respondent that possession has been taken by the applicant is confirmed. The entitlement of either of the party can be decided by the Court, seized of the matter, under Illegal Dispossession Act.
7. Anyhow, apparently the lease deed of 1977 in favour of respondent is a registered document and under section 111 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order Court has to take judicial notice and will give weight until it is disproved. The claim of the applicant in respect of same plots but under Nos.A-57 and A- 58 also create doubts and that can only be removed when there is strong supportive documents in favour of the applicant.
8. ' In such a situation and keeping in view the documents which have come on record I don't find that the findings of the learned Additional District Judge, made in the order dated 27-9-2007, are improper, hence calls for no interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction the same is approved, the revision stand dismissed with cost.
9. ' It is further to be pointed out that the learned counsel for the applicant has raised objection to the applicability of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 by stating that it cannot be applied retrospectively. Answer to this question is available in the order passed in Criminal Revision Application No,S-24 of 2007 as well as in PLD 2007 SC 427. In the above cited case decided by this.
10. Court it has been observed that the Illegal Dispossession Act has been promulgated to land grabbers, therefore, keeping in view the intention of legislation as facilitate General Public and to take to task the notorious persons and well as indulgence of land grabbers so frequently in land grabbing. Law is to be applied retrospectively. It is also with the intention that if the Law is applied prospectively then there is possibility that the land grabbers may forge back dated documents and thereby will also raise various disputes in respect to those documents and that will diminish the very purpose of the Act. The land grabbing menace, for which the Law of Illegal Dispossession has been promulgated, should not be let loose only on the ground that the said heinous crime was committed before the Act. The very purpose and its applicability as well interpretation of operative section is available in above referred order/judgment, hence need no further discussion. Needless to say that since the act of illegal dispossession remain in continuity until remedied, therefore, a person taking possession illegally cannot be allowed to save himself on technical pleas.