' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Through this constitutional petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the petitioner has challenged the validity of judgment dated 6-3- 2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hafizabad whereby a complaint, under sections 3/8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005, had been dismissed by the learned trial Court being non- maintainable mainly on the ground that prior to filing of the complaint both the parties were locked in civil/revenue litigations and the litigations before the Revenue Board were still pending.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a private complaint under sections 3/8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Hafizabad with the contention that his father Muhammad Sharif purchased the disputed land from Muhammad Sadiq on 18-2-1972 vide Mutation No,134 and after the death of his father the disputed land was transferred through mutation of inheritance, in the name of the petitioner, his brothers and his sisters who transferred their share of land in the name of the petitioner who, moved an application on 2-3-2005 under section 122 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 to the DDO(R)/Collector Hafizabad for restoration of possession. The DDO(R) through revenue officer inspected the spot in presence of the parties and after demarcation, Irshadullah Naib Tehsildar prepared his report and after hearing the parties decided the petition in terms that Khalid Mehmood and Muhammad Arif respondents Nos.2 and 3 (writ petitioner) were found in illegal dispossession so they were ordered under section 67(b)(7) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 to deliver possession of the land to the complainant. Warrant Dakhal was issued in favour of the petitioner-complainant but in the meantime, respondents Nos.2 and 3 filed a civil suit in respect of the said land, which was dismissed. They filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, which was also dismissed.
Thereafter Tehsildar along with Girdawar prepared Naqsha Tafawat in respect of the land measuring 2 Kanals 3 Marlas and after its demarcation, possession of the land was handed over to the petitioner-complainant without any resistance at 11-00 a.m. On 25-2-2006. After completion of these proceedings, the petitioner-complainant obtained possession of property, he raised certain constructions and also installed a gate after constructing boundary wall thereon; but the respondents-accused, while armed with dandas reached the spot on a tractor-trolley at 3-00 a.m.
On 4-3-2006, demolished the boundary wall constructed by the complainant, caused loss of Rs,85,000 and took over the possession of the said land forcibly and illegally.
3. The petitioner filed the aforementioned complaint in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hafizabad, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 6-3-2007 with reference to Zahoor Ahmad and 5 others versus the State and 3 others (PLD 2007 Lahore page-231).
4. The learned trial Court examined the petitioner complainant under section 200, Cr.P.C. Followed by recording of preliminary statements of Liaquat Ali P.W.2 and Qamar Islam (P.W.3) under section 202, Cr.P.C. The petitioner-complainant tendered certain documents in evidence during the course of said inquiry and closed his preliminary evidence. The learned trial court vide its order dated 19- 5-2006 summoned all the respondents-accused to face the trial in the aforesaid complaint under sections 3/4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005.
' The respondents-accused were delivered copies of the requisite documents under section 265-C, Cr.P.C. In the meantime the petitioner-complainant moved an application seeking interim custody/possession of the disputed land. The complaint was still at the stage of summoning of the respondents-accused, when on 6-3-2007 the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that from the perusal of cursory evidence of the petitioner and other requisite material, it is proved on record that the respondents-accused while armed had committed worst degree of roguery on the fateful day, they razed constructions of the petitioner-complainant to the ground, forcibly took possession of the said land and caused a loss of Rs,85000 to the complainant; that the learned trial court has dismissed the complaint of the petitioner with reference to aforementioned case-law (PLD 2007 Lahore 231), but this judgment was no more in the field as it had been overruled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, reported as Rahim Tahir v. Ahmad Jan and 2 others (PLD 2007 SC page-423); that the petitioner-complainant had been handed down the possession of disputed land through the proceedings of Warrant Dakhal and he had been dispossessed of the said land by the respondents-accused which, was an offence within the meanings of provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act 2005; that the act of the respondents-accused falls within the definition of land grabbers and they are liable for prosecution under the Act, ibid, notwithstanding the pendency of civil or revenue case, prior to the institution of the instant complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act 2005.
6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents-accused has contended that the operation of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported as PLD 2007 Lahore page 231 has been suspended by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, but it had not been finally decided as yet; that the complaint of the petitioner could not be taken to its logical end until the apex Court of the country finally decides the fate of the aforesaid Full Bench Judgment. He has further contended that the Courts are supposed to observe as to whether the case in hand relates to unauthorized occupancy or whether it was supported by the judgment of the apex Court referred to above; that sufficient material was available in the shape of the evidence and that the learned Judge has committed an error by dismissing the complaint.
' Learned counsel for the respondents-accused has also contended that civil/revenue litigation was pending between the parties and on the score of the same allegations, the complainant has filed the instant complaint to redress the civil grievance under the garb of criminal proceedings; that the established principle of law is that in presence of civil proceedings, criminal courts cannot step forward and cannot use the leverage of the criminal law to pressurize and overawe the respondents; he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
8. It has been laid down time and again by this. Court as well as by the apex Court of the country that continuation of a civil suit is no bar to criminal proceedings, even though both the cases relate to the same subject-matter. The pendency of a civil suit is no bar for initiation of the criminal proceedings and that both cases may proceed ahead side by side. I rely, in this regard, upon case- law titled, "Rehmatullah v. Abdul Aziz and another (1974 PCr.LJ 541), Sheikh Ahmad v. Sheikh Muhammad Younas (1971 PCr.LJ 331) and Muhammad Shafi v. Deputy Superintendent of Police Narowal and 5 others (PLD 1992 Lahore 178).
9. Having been guided from the above principle as laid down in the aforesaid judgments, I am convinced that in presence of a civil/revenue case, pending between the petitioner-complainant and respondents-accused, the present complaint can continue side by side and no bar existed for its decision even prior to the decision of the civil/revenue case(s). The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 has been interpreted by a Full Bench of this Court in case titled Zahoor Ahmad and 5 others v.
The State and 3 others (PLD 2007 Lahore 231) as under:--
(i) The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 applies to dispossession from immovable property only by property grabbers/Qabza group/ land mafia. A complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, can be entertained by a Court of Session only if some material exists showing involvement of the persons complained against in some previous activity connected with illegal dispossession from immovable property or the complaint demonstrates and organized or calculated effort by some persons perating individually or in groups to grab by force or deceit property to which they have no lawful, ostensible, or justifiable claim. In the case of an individual, it must be the manner of execution of his designs which may exposed him as property grabber.
(ii) The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 does not apply to run of the mill cases of alleged dispossession from immovable properties by ordinary persons having no credentials or antecedents of being property grabbers/Qabza groups/land mafia i,e, cases of dispute over possession of immovable properties between co-owners or co-shares between landlords and tenants, between persons claiming possession on the basis of inheritance, between persons vying for possession, on the basis of competing title documents, contractual agreement or Revenue Record or cases with a background of an ongoing private dispute over the relevant property."
' The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Rahim Tahir v. Ahmed Jan and 2 others, reported as PLD 2007 SC 423 has held as under:--
(b) Illegal Dispossession Act (IX of 2005)--- Section 3--- prevention of illegal possession of property, etc--- Expression "Grab", "Control or occupy" used in section 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, cannot be restricted to the illegal occupants who entered in the premises subsequent to the promulgation of the Act, rather all cases of illegal and unauthorized occupant would be subject to the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 except the cases which were pending adjudication before other forum."
' It was also observed by the apex Court in the same judgment:-- ' ---- Mere filing of the suit subsequent to the filing of complaint on the basis of a document having no legal foundation, was of no consequences and significant to protect the illegal and unauthorized possession."
10. In the above circumstances it is manifestly clear that Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was not only meant for checking and curbing the illegal activities of land grabbers, Qabza Groups. Or persons habitual involved in such like acts, but, it also encompasses the identical land grabbing /snatching activities of the individuals.
11. The complaint filed by the petitioner-complaint discloses the commission of an offence falling within the definition of section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005. The statement of the complainant and those of his witnesses under section 202, Cr.P.C. Along with supporting Revenue Record, prima facie establishes the fact that the petitioner-complainant was a lawful owner of the land in question, which had been transgressed and occupied by the respondents-accused, as alleged in the complaint. The complainant has specifically levelled the allegations of forcibly dispossession of his land at the hands of the respondents-accused and primarily has brought such evidence on record, which if, stands the test of the trial would be sufficient to successfully prosecute the respondents-accused. I do not want to comment further on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the case of any one of the two parties.
12. The complaint was at the stage of indictment of the respondents-accused when it was brought to a premature end by the learned trial Court through the impugned judgment.
13. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 6-3- 2007 is set aside and the complaint filed by the petitioner shall be deemed as pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hafizabad, who will decide the same expeditiously on merits.