ORDER SALMAN HAMID, J. ---Present Criminal Acquittal Appeal emanates from the impugned Judgment/Order dated 15-1-2011, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Kamber in Case No.88 of 2010 acquitted the present respondents Nos.1 and -2 when they preferred application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Therein.
2. Facts, which have been extracted from the record of the file, would show that the present appellant filed an application under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (Act, 2005) against the above two respondents on the allegation that she and her son namely Munawwar Hussain were illegally dispossessed from their land measuring 2 acres from Survey No.158 (4-0 Acres) and 20 ghuntas. From Survey No.152 (8-06 Acres), Deh Thul, Taluka Meero Khan (the Land) sold to her and her son by Miral, husband and father respectively of appellant and her son.
3. After filing of above application under Act 2005, necessary procedure, as laid down therein was followed; complainant on her behalf got examined her son named above who was also her attorney who produced before the Court below original Power of Attorney and true copy of Record of Rights as Exhibits 3/A and 3/B respectively.
4. Such evidence having been led, the present two respondents Nos.1 and 2 moved application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. For their acquittal for want of evidence against them.
5. Though the appellant mentioned in the application and in the evidence that she and her son were forcibly and illegally dispossessed from the Land at the hands of respondents Nos.1 and 2 in and and assistance of four men, neither their names were disclosed nor any allegation, specific or otherwise, was raised against them as to the manner of such illegal dispossession. On the contrary, it was mentioned and/or came on record through the true copy of Record of. Rights, Exhibit 3/A that the Land was mutated in her and in the name of her son by Miral husband of appellant and father of Munawwar on or about 14-9-2009 a date much after the date of alleged illegal dispossession from the Land which was shown to be 7-5-2008. It seems that the above solitary but overwhelming evidence came as a blow against the appellant with the result that the impugned Order/ judgment was passed.
6. From the grounds of Appeal, it would become abundantly clear that above observation of the learned Additional District Judge, Kamber was not disputed and/or denied or even by passing refuted by the appellant. All the grounds those were raised in the Appeal were general in nature, not touching upon the fact that the names of appellant and her son Munawwar Hussain appear in the Record of Rights on 14-9-2009 whereas illegal dispossession was allegedly shown to be of 7-5- 2006. All that was raised and argued by the -appellant that the impugned Order/ Judgment was passed without appreciation of evidence, in a slipshod manner and without looking into the documents available on record.
7. As already observed above that no ground whatsoever is available to the effect, that the mutation of the Land in question is later in time to the date of illegal dispossession. Therefore, it prima facie shows that the application which was brought before the Court lacked the provisions of section 3 of Act, 2005 and seemingly was an attempt to brew-beat the respondents Nos.1 and The fact that despite the allegation of illegal dispossession on 7-5-2008 the application was filed on 26-11-2009. Such belated approach to the Court require review of the application very critically.
No person, in national circumstances would sit upon his right such long and come to the court so late.
8. It is well-settled that an entry in the Record of Rights under section 52 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 (Act 1967) shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor. Since according to the appellant's on showing the Entry of the Land, upon which the appellant was relying upon is an Entry after in time to the date of alleged illegal dispossession, prima facie shows that the respondents Nos.1 and 2 were holding the Land within their on rights and, therefore, did not fall within the pale of Act, 2005 yet such application was moved against them. It, therefore, prima facie shows that at best there is some civil dispute with regard to the ownership of the Land. Under such circumstances, the appellant was entitled to have recourse through civil litigation, which it seems till date has not been availed of; instead precious time has been wasted by filing application under the provisions of Act, 2005. It goes without saying that the appellant would be entitled to have legal recourse under the civil jurisdiction, if so available to her under the law.
9. Looking the case in hand from the above perspective, I am not inclined to issue notice to the respondents and dismiss the appeal in limine.. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.