' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calls in question a judgment, dated 10-5-2007, passed by learned Judge in Chambers in the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta disposing of Criminal Revision Petition No,97 of 2006, arising out of a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 preferred on behalf of Muhammad Yousaf, respondent No,1 against Muhammad Akram and others. Petitioners.
2. Facts of the case as gathered from the record precisely stated area that Muhammad Yousaf, respondent No,1, filed a complaint under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 before the Sessions Judge, Lasbella at Hub on 14-6-2006, alleging therein that he is recorded owner of the property measuring 8 Acres, 3 rods, 34 poles under Survey No,159/1, situated at Mouza Sakran, Tehsil and District Lasbella, that Juma Khan, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was allowed to reside temporarily in a portion of land measuring 400 sq. Yards and after his demise in the year 1959-60, petitioners were allowed to stay thereon, that petitioners started collecting material at property in question to raise construction and that the petitioners were asked to vacate but they declined to do so, compelling respondent No,1 to file a complaint against them.
3. Record reveals that learned Sessions Judge, recorded statement of respondent No,1 on oath on 14-6-2006 and referred the matter to the S.H.O. Concerned for inquiry and report, who on 6-7-2006 submitted his report. This report was duly supported with the report of Tehsildar and other officials.
At the conclusion of the trial, through judgment, dated 12-9-2006, learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that respondent No,1 was illegally dispossessed and property was grabbed by the petitioners in contravention of section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. He accepted the complaint and directed the petitioners to restore the possession of the property to respondent No,1 without any delay. Petitioners, feeling aggrieved thereby, filed criminal revision petition in the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, which was disposed of through the judgment impugned herein.
4. We have heard at length Mr. Mehta W.N. Kohli, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners and Mr. Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No,1 in the light of the material on file.
5. It is mainly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that judgment of learned Single Judge of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta is against law, facts and justice, that learned Judge exercised his jurisdiction by failing to take into consideration that the 'claim of respondent No,1 did not fall under the provisions of section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and thus the matter between the parties being of civil nature, was exclusively tribal by the Civil Court and that the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge in Chambers is the result of misreading and non- reading of evidence and misapplication of law and cannot be allowed to remain intact.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 in reply, opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and supported the impugned judgment whole-heartedly maintaining that the petitioners without permission illegally and unlawfully stored material for raising construction upon the respondents' property and the trial Court after taking into consideration the report of S.H.O. As well as other material on record rightly accepted the complaint of respondent No,1 and directed for restoration of possession.
7. A careful perusal of the record would reveal that predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners namely Juma Khan was allowed to reside on a piece of land measuring 400 sq. Yards purely on temporary basis. The report of the S.H.O. Indicates that father of respondent No,1 is recorded owner of the property measuring 8 Acres, 3 rods and 4 poles falling under Khasra No,159/1 and on some portion of land houses of petitioners and others exist. The settlement operation of the area was made in the year 1969-70 and the property was initially recorded in the name of late Jam Mir Ghulam Qadir, who, subsequently, vide Mutation No,4 dated 13-7-1970 transferred the entries in the name of father of respondent No,
1. The material on record clearly establishes that petitioners without permission of respondent No,1 illegally and unlawfully encroached upon the property in question and started collecting material for raising construction thereon. The High Court has recorded a detailed and comprehensive judgment, dilating upon every aspect of the case. The provisions of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 are in the form of preventive provisions. The section begins with the words: "no one shall...". This is a prohibitory mandate. There is no restriction as to the class of person. All persons have been prohibited to commit the offence detailed in this provision, be he male or female. In order to constitute an offence under section 3(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the complainant is to allege and show before the Court:---
(i) that the complainant is the actual owner (or occupier i,e, in lawful possession) of the immovable property in question;
(ii) that the accused has entered into (or upon) the said property;
(iii) that the entry of the accused into (or upon) the said property is without any lawful authority;
(iv) that the accused has done so with the intention to dispossess (to grab or to control or to occupy) the complainant. The defence line for the accused can be:---
(1) that the complainant is not the actual owner of the property;
(2) that the entry of the accused into the property is not to dispossess the complainant;
(3) that the accused has the lawful authority to enter into the property;
(4) that the accused had no intention to dispossess the complainant.
' The law has made it clear that a person who is proved guilty shall not save him from the punishment for which he may be liable under any other law for the time being in force.
' The provisions of section 3(2) is salutary and mandatory. It is with the purpose to alleviate the suffering and is also effective deterrent against crime. The Legislature has taken full care to close all doors of any injustice to the parties. It was observed by this Court in case of Rahim Tahir v.
Ahmed Jan and 2 others PLD 2007 SC 423:--- "The Illegal Dispossession Ac, 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 careful examination of the relevant provisions in the Act would reveal that all cases of illegal occupants without any distinction would be covered by the Act, except the cases which were 'already pending before any other forum. ... The purpose of this special law was to protect the right of possession of lawful owner or occupier and not to perpetuate the possession of illegal occupants."
' In view of above, finding, no substance in this petition, we dismiss the same and decline to grant leave.