1. This Revision Application has been directed against the judgment dated 14.7.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi, in direct Complaint No, 5/2005 (Muhammad Arshad us. Sultan Murree), whereby the direct Complaint under Section 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, "hereinafter shall be referred to as the Act, 2005", was dismissed and Respondent No, 1 was acquitted from the charge.
2. The facts leading rise to the present appeal in brief are that the appellant is running his business of auto parts in the name and style of Arshad Autos in a shop situated at Yousuf Goth, Main National Highway, Karachi, for the last about 15/16 years and is paying electricity charges, telephone bills, income tax, shop tax to various departments. On 11.8.2005, land grabbers illegally and forcibly dispossessed him from the shop in question and the appellant filed direct Complaint before the learned lower Court. The learned lower Court after preliminary inquiry took the cognizance of the matter and process were issued against Respondent No,
1. Both the parties led the evidence in support of their respective claims before the learned lower Court and the learned lower Court after appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, acquitted Respondent No, 1 from . the charge under Section 265-H, Cr.P.C., thereby dismissing the complaint, hence the present appeal.
3. I have heard Mr. Sardar Sher Afzal, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. M. Naimat Ali Randhawa, learned counsel for Respondent No, 1, and Miss Afsheen Aman, learned counsel for State.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appellant was in possession of the shop in question for the last 15/16 years and was running his business of auto parts in the said shop and Respondent No, 1 has no lawful right to dispossess him from the said shop, as such the lawful possession of the appellant is protected under the provisions of Act, 2005 and the learned lower Court did not consider the said evidence in its true perspective, as such the judgment, passed by the learned lower Court, suffers from material irregularity and illegality. The electricity bills, telephone bills, shop tax, etc., paid by the appellant, have not been taken into consideration by the learned lower Court. According to him, the, judgment passed by the learned lower Court is liable to be reversed and the appellant may be inducted in the possession of the shop in question.
5. Mr. Naimat Ali Randhawa and Miss Afsheen Aman, advocates, the learned counsel for the respondents have refuted the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and have contended that the appellant is neither the owner of the property in question nor lawful occupier of the said shop, as such he is not entitled for any protection under the provisions of Act, 2005.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available before me.
7. Admittedly, the appellant is not the owner of the property in dispute as admittedly the property in dispute is situated in a Katchi abadi and he himself is the land grabber over a Government land, as such his possession over the Government land in any way could not be termed to be lawful possession over the property in question. When confronted with the said legal position, the learned counsel for the appellant candidly admitted that the appellant is not the lawful owner of the property in question because the land devolve to the Government. Since the appellant himself is not the lawful owner or occupier of the property in question, as such he cannot seek protection under the provisions of Act, 2005. The similar point also came for consideration before the learned D.B. of this Court in the case of Memoona Bano vs. SHOD PS AI-Falah & Others (SBLR 2007 Sindh 1047) and the learned D.B in similar circumstances, as involved in the present case, was pleased to observe as under: "9. It would be seen that the object of the Illegal. Dispossession Act, 2005, is to curb the activities of land grabbers. In fact, the preamble itself states "Whereas it is expedient, to protect the lawful owner and occupiers of immovable properties from their illegal 'or forcible dispossession by the property grabbers". Although the term "property grabbers" has not been defined in the Act yet the intention of the legislature is quite apparent i,e, this would mean those persons who do not have any lawful title to the property in question but insist on occupying it. Hence, the provisions of the Act would not apply where any legitimate dispute is displayed by the person who is alleged to be a property grabber."
8. The observations made in the case of Memoona Bano (supra) are fully , applicable to the circumstances of the present case and in view of the aforesaid observations, the appellant has no legitimate right to claim any protection under the provisions of Act, 2005.
9. The appeal has, therefore, no substance and is hereby dismissed summarily.