JUDGMENT IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 24-11-2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakpatan Sharif through which the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner claimed that she was in possession of the property measuring 4 marlas, detailed as Khewat No. 967, Khatoni No. 3076 to 3192, Qitaat 239, Share 4/23287 out of Saalam Khata 1164 kanal. She was a widow and she had raised construction over said property like boundary wall, one room and a bath room and she was in possession of said property. On 10-1-2009 respondents Nos. 1 to 4 along with three unknowns who belong to Qabza group at 10-00 a.m. While armed with fire-arms and without any justification at gunpoint had taken forcible possession the property in question. After receipt of complaint, statement of the petitioner was recorded as P.W.1 in which she had reiterated her claim. The respondents were summoned. The learned trial Court has obtained police reports thrice and in one police report at the time of summoning of the respondents only one sentence has been mentioned that the possession of the house of Mst. Naziran Bibi has been taken. Through the impugned order dated, 24-11-2009, the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was lawful owner in possession of property comprising over 4 marlas which was situated situated in Khewat No. 967/944 and respondents Nos. 1 to 4 had taken possession of the said land forcibly but the learned trial Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif after hearing the respondents came to the conclusion that the petitioner can seek other remedies as no case under Illegal Dispossession was made out. The learned trial Court has dismissed the complaint in a slipshod manner which order is liable to be set aside and a direction may be issued to proceed into the matter after recording the evidence of the parties. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 opposes this petition on the ground that Gulzar one of the respondents is husband of the real brother of the petitioner who has sold the land to respondent No. 1. They had constructed the said portion of land and had also got installed electricity meter in their name in the year, 2001. The learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 has also produced copy of Jama Bandi for the year, 2001 which shows that the said land was in possession of Gulzar Ali and out of said land, 15 marlas are in possession of Shahzad Ali and Mumtaz Ali sons of Abdul and their possession according to the revenue record is with the respondents.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. It is borne out from the record that only oral assertion of the petitioner with regard to taking of forcible possession of the property in dispute by the respondents is available and no material to substantiate the oral assertion is available on the record of this file from where it can be established that she is in possession of said property before filing of complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. Contrary to that the respondents have supplied sufficient material showing that they are in possession of the property being co-sharers. It seems that in spite of B adopting civil procedure she has chosen to take possession through Illegal Dispossession Act. It is noticed by this Court that due to promulgation of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 all the other remedies available to the litigants become redundant and everybody choses to adopt summary procedure to take possession of properties by invoking provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act. As the petitioner has no documentary evidence in her support which establishes that she is ever in possession property and her oral assertion cannot be made basis for entertaining the application under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. On the other hand, the respondents have rebutted the claim of the petitioner by producing sufficient documentary evidence that they are owners of the disputed property being co-sharers and they are in possession of the property.
5. For what has been discussed, no interference is required in the impugned order dated 24-11- 2009 passed by, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif and this writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.