' QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.---Aggrieved of the judgment and order dated 6-5-2011 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bann, vide which the complaint of the petitioner was dismissed being not maintainable, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
2. Brief facts of the present petition are that the petitioner/ complainant is the owner of House Nos.
1, 40 and 44, vide settlement carried out in 1994-1995, and that several civil litigations have resulted between the petitioner and the respondents and the latter have nothing to do with the houses in question. The same were decreed in favour of the petitioner by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge on 27-11-2006 and finally upheld by the D.I.Khan Bench of this Court on 26-10-2009 and through a warrant for possession duly issued and executed, the possession of the suit property was delivered to the petitioner, but, still the accused/ respondents illegally and forcibly dispossessed the petitioner from the suit property in respect of which an F.I.R No, 414, dated 18-10-2010 under sections 427/447/379, P.P.C., was registered at Police Station Basia Khel; which was settled as a result of a compromise through the elders of the area but petitioner again backed out from the said compromise and again forcibly tried to occupy the suit property, whereafter another F.I.R No,77 under sections 506/452/427, P.P.C. Was registered at the same Police Station on 21-10-2011 and after that a complaint under section 314 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was filed against the respondents. On taking cognizance of the complaint, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bannu marked it, to the Police Station Basia Khel, Bannu, for inquiry and report and thereafter dismissed the same, vide impugned judgment and order dated 9-5-2011.
3, Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the suit property and in this respect judgment of the various courts including that of the Peshawar High Court, D.I.Khan Bench are in his favour and so far as his ownership is concerned, the same has become a closed chapter, but still respondents have illegally. And unlawfully dispossessed the petitioner from his property; that the learned trial Court has wrongly dismissed his complaint as petitioner is at liberty to simultaneously invoke all the remedies available to him; that the learned trial Court has legally erred in dismissing the complaint of the petitioner on the point of maintainability.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents argued that various litigations are still pending in respect of the suit property including the registration of criminal cases and in the garb of the present complaint, the petitioner wants to get a favourable decision in the said litigations and this his complaint has rightly been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bannu.
5. The dispute between the parties has a long and chequered history and is gleaned from the available record that the parties have entered into several civil litigations which have finally culminated into the registration of F.I.Rs, Without adverting much to the facts of the cases inter se between the parties, lest the interests of either party may be prejudiced in the ultimate, suffice it to say that the basic idea and philosophy behind the enactment of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was to rid the people from the menace of Qabza group/ property grabbers and A land mafia and to curb their activities to the maximum. In order to qualify to be a member of either of the said three groups or categories, the complainant has to bring sufficient evidence to show that the accused belong to a Qabza group, land mafia or have the credentials or antecedents of being property grabbers. Wisdom in this respect is sought from PLD .2010 SC 661 and PLD 2007 Lah.
331. In view of the parameters mentioned in the Act ibid as well as the judgment referred, the petitioner has been unable to place the respondents in the said three laid down criteria.
6. For the reasons stated above, this petition being bereft of merits is hereby dismissed.