1. SALMAN HAMID, J.---Criminal Complaint number nil of 2009 re: Sarfraz Khan versus Allah Bux and others having been dismissed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana in terms of impugned Order dated 4-12-2009, on the ground that on the date of filing of such Complaint, litigation since the year 1984 in respect of the Land involved therein was pending, it was not maintainable under the provisions of A Illegal Dispossession Act present Criminal Revision Application No,62 of 2009 under sections 435 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicant denying the above position argued that at the time of disposal of the above Criminal Complaint, no litigation was pending before any other competent Court of law with regard to the subject-matter of the case in hand and submitted that the, Hon'ble Supreme Court authority which was cited by the applicant was incorrectly interpreted by the 1st ADJ, Larkana to his disadvantage and that such citation in fact was in his favour. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos.2 to 4 through his written synopsis stated that as per report, furnished by the Mukhtiarkar concerned, the respondents were shown in possession of the land in dispute since last 30 years and that there was/is pending litigation in respect of the land in question therefore, provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act were not attracted.
3. ' Since the learned 1st ADJ, Larkana has given details of the dispute quite comprehensively in reaching to the conclusion that the Criminal Complaint was not maintainable under the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act 2005, I would not like to mention the same. However I would like to reiterate some factors, which according to me are necessary to hold that the impugned Order that was passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana require no interference.
4. ' It was on/or about 5-9-1984 that the 1st Senior Civil Judge, Larkana upon a Suit No,101 of 1984 being filed by Haji Abdul Ghafoor and another against Anwar Ali and others passed status quo order in it.
5. The Suit that was brought before such Court contained the following prayers:-- "(a) Honourable Court be pleased to declare impugned order dated 19-4-1984 passed by the defendant No,8 (Member II, BOR, Sindh, Hyderabad) along with and depended upon directions under letter dated 7-11-1978 passed by the defendant No,9, (Dy. Corn. (DRC) New Ex. DO (Rev)
6. Larkana District] illegal, void, ab initio and land involved in S.No,774 area 6-0 acres deh Vikya Sangi and S.No,455 area 9-30 acres deh Nangar Sangi Taluka Larkana to be State land and granted to plaintiff as stated above grant perpetual injunction restraining defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession of plaintiffs and enjoyment of produce of disputed land, No,14(a) Supra direct or indirect and agent or institution of Government. (emphasis supplied)
(b) Costs of suit.
(c) Any other relief admissible under circumstances be granted to the plaintiffs."
7. ' Above suit remained pending up to 22-12-2008 when vide judgment dated 22-12-2008 and decree 4-1-2002 it was dismissed. Against that judgment and decree Civil Appeal No,6 of 2002 was filed, which too was dismissed by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Larkana vide judgment dated 28-2-2003. Appellate decree was prepared on 4-3-2003. After dismissal of Appeal, Civil Revision Application No,29 of 2003 under section 115, Civil Procedure Code was filed challenging the above appellate judgment and decree. However, on 19-5-2006 CRA was withdraws when following order was passed:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the revision application with the statement that the petitioner intends to file fresh suit. Permission is granted. The revision application stands disposed of as withdrawn along with listed-application. "
8. ' It is also worth-mentioning that after the lease deed of 27-12-2001 the Applicant in the year 2004 filed a Constitutional Petition No,29 of 2004 against revenue authorities in respect of the Land which was dismissed vide Order dated 16-9-2004 which reads as under:-- "Petitioner has challenged the Entry No,519. And 319 made by respondent No,1 in respect of S.No,774 and S.No,455 of deh Vikiya Sangi Taluka Larkana as null and void. It was pointed out by Muhammad Bachal Tunio learned Additional A.-G. That such entry against above S. Numbers is only to the effect of pendency of litigation in respect thereof. Mr. Ghouri states that the litigation in respect of survey 'numbers whether the plaintiff is party or not is immaterial. We do not see any justification to interfere in this matter when the litigation is not disputed. Petition is accordingly dismissed."
9. From bare perusal of above order it becomes clear that there was a dispute with regard to the Land and that the litigation that was pending in respect thereof had not been disputed. It seems that after dismissal of this constitutional petition, the applicant did not do anything. Illegal Dispossession Act was promulgated on 6-7-2005. It seems that after the promulgation of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and withdrawal of Cr. A. No,29 of 2003 by the respondents on or about 19- 5-2006, the applicant after about 3-1/2 years thereafter thought it wise to file proceedings in respect of the Land against the respondents for a remedy as available therein. Again without realizing that the litigation was pending in respect of Land S.No,455 area 9.30 acres deh Nangar Sangi Taluka Larkana since the year 1984 and the lease deed dated 27-12-2001 in respect of the above Land was executed between the present applicant and Mazaruddin son of Shamsuddin and that the Entry was made in the Record of Rights Mutation Register on 11-1-2002, wherein at the time of such mutation it was clearly mentioned by way of a Note that since the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Sessions Court as per the attached letter hence stamp may not be activated till decision of the Hon'ble Court. Sd/- Tapedar Vikia Sinai" which Note was challenged in a C.P., mentioned above and that the C.P. Was dismissed.
10. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act essentially says that during pendency of any suit or proceedings in any court any immovable property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any other party to the suit or proceedings so as to affect the rights of any other party, except under the authority of the court. It is clear from the history of the case that litigation and/or proceedings in the words of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act were pending in respect of the Land and despite such pending litigation/proceedings of the Land, the applicant chose to purchase it, ignoring the principles of the above section or the concept of "Beware Buyer". It cannot, under the circumstances, by any stretch of imagination be said that the applicant acted prudently or responsibly in entering into the lease dated 27-12-2001 in respect of the Land inasmuch as when the Entry was made, the applicant was quite aware of pending litigation and he deemed to have known the principles of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act being a practising Advocate. Even otherwise ignorance of law is no ground to claim any latitude or benefit thereof.
11. ' Coming specifically to the application of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 retrospectively, or otherwise which was argued by the counsel on either end on the touchstone of its preamble, suffice it, to say that the same is of no consequence, keeping in view the above discussion of pending litigation/proceedings since 1984.
12. ' In his world famous Treatise on the Construction and Interpretation of Statutes. Earl T Crawford has explained the use of a preamble in the following words:-- "The preamble of a statute is simply a prefatory statement at its beginning, following the title and proceeding the enacting clause, explaining or declaring the reasons and motives for, and the objections sought to be accomplished by the enactment of the statute. It is now seldom use, and is not an essential part. But when used, it is an excellent aid to the construction of ambiguous statues or statutes of doubtful meaning. It is a key to the construction of a statue and should be resorted to unlock the minds of its makers."
13. Perhaps the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan had the above principles in mind in the case of Rahim Tahir versus Ahmed Jan and 2 others (PLD 2007 SC 423) when it held that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 has no retrospective effect and therefore, may not be applicable to the cases of unauthorized occupants pending before any other forum on the date of promulgation of the said Act.
14. ' Though it may be true that the present applicant had filed Criminal Complaint nil of 2009 before the 1st ADJ, Larkana much after the promulgation of the Illegal Dispossession Act which came into force in the whole of Pakistan on 6-7-2005 the irresistible fact that litigation was also pending in respect of the Land since 1984 cannot be overlooked or ignored and also the fact that even alienation of the land had taken place while the litigation/proceedings were still pending. I would not hesitate to go up to the extent that at the time of preferring the Criminal Complaint on or about 29-8-2009 (incorrectly mentioned as 29-8-2008 in the Cr.RA) the ownership of the applicant was foggy inasmuch as that according to the record of the case the person from whom the Land was purchased by the applicant perhaps had no marketable title to convey the same in his favour and that, under the circumstances, it is perhaps the applicant who would be exposed to the mischief of the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, However I would not travel into that direction and leave it for the courts empowered to deal with the same.
15. Having said as much, I do not wish to interfere with the findings of the impugned Order of the 1st AJD, Larkana. Even otherwise under section 435 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court would interfere into the findings of the courts below only if it sees that the findings were incorrect, illegal or improper which in the present case are not. Similarly, under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court would exercise power of revision if the grounds mentioned in section 435 of the Cr.P.C. Are attracted. Such is not the case here. Present Criminal Revision Application is therefore dismissed however with no order as to costs.