1. ' SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, J.---This is a Criminal Revision Application filed by the applicant against the impugned order dated 22-2-2011, passed by Vth Additional Session Judge, Karachi West, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant Muhammad Usman was dismissed having no merits for consideration.
2. ' Perusal of the impugned order transpires that the learned trial Court while placing reliance on decision of Apex Court, reported as 2009 SCMR 1066, dismissed the complaint.
3. ' Succinct facts giving rise to the complaint filed before the learned trial Court are that complainant claim ownership of Property bearing No, BM-A-1831, Karachi and asserted that the respondents have dispossessed him from the above mentioned disputed shop by illegal means. Necessary facts came from the impugned order are that the complainant has failed to prove his ownership and claim over the mentioned property on the basis of verbal agreement. The concerned police has also reported that the mentioned land has not been leased out but encroached by the complainant. With regard to the citation viz 2009 SCMR 1066 learned counsel for the applicant argued that the trial Court has seriously erred not to dilate upon the necessary points mentioned by the Horeble Apex Court. The learned trial Court did not discuss that the complainant is the actual owner or occupier i,e, in lawful possession of the immovable property in question and that accused has entered into, (or upon) the said property and that entry of the accused into (or upon) the said property is without any lawful authority and lastly accused has done so with the intention to dispossess them (to grab or to control or to occupy). It has further been argued that the trial Court has overlooked and ignored the bone of contention in between the parties as to whether case of illegal dispossession was made out or not. Learned counsel further contended that slipshod order passed by the learned trial Court need to be set aside. In addition to the above submissions it is contended that the trial Court has failed to dilate upon the relevant provision viz. Section-2(c) define an occupier separately from an "owner". Section-3 of the Act refers to owner or occupier of such property, is reproduced hereinbelow:- Section 3 "Prevention of illegal dispossession of property, etc.---(i) No one shall enter into or upon any property to dispossess, grab, control or occupy it without having any lawful authority to do so with the intention to dispossess, grab, control or occupy the property from owner or occupier of such property".
4. ' In support of his contention learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on PLD 2011 Karachi 405, 2010 YLR 1566, and 2012 SCMR 229 and contended that it is abundantly clear that the. Trial Court has misapplied and misinter preted the case-law of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as 2009 SCMR, 1066, as the possession of the applicant was lawful under the valid Judgment and decree. In the case of S. Sohail Haan v. Mian Abid Manzoor reported as 2010 YLR 495 Karachi, the learned Judge has been pleased to observe as follows:-- "In Section 3 of the Act, it is provided that no one shall enter upon any property to dispossess, grab or control or occupy it without having any lawful authority to do so, with the intention to dispossess, grab, control or occupy the property from owner or occupier of such property. This section which defines the Criminal Act clearly covers every act of dispossession committed by a person irrespective of the fact whether he commits such act individually or in consort with several other person. It is also not necessary that the accused who has committed the illegal act of dispossession should already be known to be a member of land grabbers or Qabza group or land mafia. Hence, the dismissal of the Applicant's application on reasoning given by the trial Court was not warranted in law".
5. ' In another decision, reported in 2010 YLR 1566, the learned Single Judge of this Court has also observed as under:-- "I have not been able to read any provision in the Illegal Dispossession Act requiring that only owner of premises can file a complaint under the Act. In fact section 2(c) defines an "occupier" separately from an "owner" and occupier has been defined to mean as one who is in lawful possession of the property. Section 3 of the Act refers to owner or occupier of such property".
6. ' And in case-law reported in 2010 YLR 1982 Mr, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar has also observed in the following words:-- "It is an important aspect that no right of appeal is provided to an aggrieved person under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, however, in order to challenge the propriety of any order, recourse is to be made through a criminal revision application which remedy is not equivalent to a right or appeal normally conferred upon an aggrieved person under different statutes as vested right, therefore, while deciding the cases under Illegal Dispossession Act, the trial Court ought to act more vigilantly and carefully to avoid any miscarriage of justice. Since the Act has been promulgated for the redress and protection of illegally dispossessed owners and occupiers of the property, therefore, in order to expedite the case, "sixty days" time has been given in the interest of justice and no adjournment shall, in any case, be granted for more than seven days".
7. On the other hand, learned A.P.-G. Though admitted regarding lack of quality in the impugned order, contended that the applicant was having no title of ownership upon the property in dispute.
8. Perusal of the impugned order transpires that the trial Court did not consider the possession of the applicant being a licensee by a decree in Civil Suit No, 711 of 2001 for declaration and injunction against the respondent No, 2 and others before the Court of IVth Senior Civil Judge Karachi followed by Execution Application No,4 of 2005, which was allowed and writ to remove the encroachment of respondent No, 02 has also been issued and occupation of the respondent No, 2 was vacated. Respondent No, 3 filed application under section 12(2), Cr.P.C. Which was dismissed. It is stated that respondent No,2 along with respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have dispossessed the applicant from the mentioned property.
9. ' Whatever mentioned above while placing reliance on dictum as laid down in aforementioned citations I am of the view that the impugned order dated 22-2-2011, passed by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West in Criminal Complaint No,49 of 2010 is not sustainable being nonspeaking and sketchy, is set aside and matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh disposal of complaint on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of order.
10. ' This Criminal Revision Application is decided in the manner indicated above.