' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Through this Revision Application, applicants have assailed order dated 26-5-2011 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Dadu in Sessions Case No.201/2011, whereby an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Filed by the applicants has been dismissed.
2. The facts leading to this Revision Application are that the respondents Nos.1 to 16 filed complaint under section 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 before learned Sessions Judge Dadu, which was transferred to learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge Dadu for disposal according to law. In their complaints, the respondents Nos.1 to 16 claimed themselves to be legal heirs of late Allah Bux and Dhani Bux, who owned unsurveyed agricultural land situated in Deh Shori, Tapa Wahi Pandhi Taluka Johi District Dadu and that the same has been mutated in their name. They further contended that the land in question was being cultivated by the applicants as haris, they also constructed their houses on the same. It was the case of the respondents Nos.1 to 16 that about 10/15 days back from filing of the above complaint, they visited the land and found that the applicants duly armed with weapons claiming to be owners of the said land and thereby dispossessed them from the land in question by illegally and forcibly occupying the same.
3. During pendency of the above case, the applicants appeared and filed an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. On the ground that the complaint under section 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act is not maintainable in law as the disputed land has been purchased by the applicant (accused) party through registered sale-deeds pertaining to the year 1945, 1958 and 1965 respectively and they are in possession of the land in question within their right since its purchase, therefore, question of illegal or forcible dispossession of the land in question from the respondent party does not arise and that the complaint was tiled with mala fide intention and ulterior motives by concealing the real facts.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned trial Court dismissed the application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Of the applicants vide impugned order dated 26-5-2011, which has been questioned in the, present Revision Application.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity in as much as the learned trial Court did not appreciate that the land in question was owned by the applicants much earlier than the claim of the respondents Nos.1 to 16. He stated that claim of the applicants regarding ownership of the land in questions is based on Sale Deeds pertaining to the year 1945, 1958 and 1965 respectively and their genuiness cannot be questioned. Learned counsel argued that the respondents themselves admitted that the applicants were haris over the land in question and in such situation complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act is not competent. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents have filed complaint through their attorney which is not maintainable in terms of section 3(1)(11) of Illegal Dispossession Act. Learned counsel contended that applicants are owners of the land in question and residing there since long and also availing utility connections. He has also placed on record the copies of utility bills. He further contended that the respondents Nos.1 to 16 on the basis of false and forged entries filed complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act against the applicants. He further contended that even the entry in the Revenue Record is not a title document and is being kept for the purpose of collecting land revenue.
' Learned counsel contended that if the respondents have any kind of claim, they have to approach the competent civil court, which can decide the question of title. Learned counsel submitted that since the title documents are in favour of the applicants, the proceedings under Illegal Dispossession Act would serve no purpose but would be abuse of process of court. He, therefore, prayed that the proceedings before the learned trial Court in the complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, may be quashed. Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the case of Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed and 3 others (2000 SCM R 122).
6. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 16 argued that the respondents have produced entry in Deh Form VII before the learned trial Court which is sufficient to substantiate ownership of the respondents Nos.1 to 16 over the land in question. He submitted that the report of the S.H.O. Is also in favour of the respondents Nos.1 to 16. He further contended that the applicants are avoiding to face the trial in the case of Illegal Dispossession Act before the trial Court and made application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. With mala fide intention and ulterior motives which was rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. He contended that report of Mukhtiarkar in favour of the applicants was challenged before learned Senior Civil Judge, where the concerned Mukhtiarkar did not appear, therefore, such report was declared to be fictitious by the civil court.
7. Learned Assistant Prosecutor-General argued that present matter does not come within the ambit of Illegal Dispossession Act as there is nothing on record that the applicants ever dispossessed the respondents Nos.1 to 16 at any time. He further contended that the possession of the applicants is much prior to the promulgation of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which has no retrospective effect. He further contended that if there is dispute between the parties over title of the property in question, they may approach the competent Civil Court, which is the proper forum to resolve the controversy between the parties. He, therefore, does not support the impugned order.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record carefully. It appears that the respondents No.1 to 16 filed complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act before the learned trial Court on the allegation of their illegal dispossession from the land in question. In their complaint, they also stated that the applicants were their haries, which draws an inference that the applicants being haris even as per the version of the respondents Nos. 1 to 16, were in possession of the land in question with their consent, thus, there was no illegal or forcible dispossession of the respondents Nos.1 to 16 by the applicants and on this account alone the complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act was not maintainable. The applicants along with their application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C.
Placed before the trial Court, Photostat copies of registered sale deeds in their favour pertaining to the year 1945, 1958 and 1965 in favour of the applicants in respect of the land in question, which were not ever challenged by the respondents Nos.1 to 16 even after coming to know about the same. Here both the parties are claiming the land in question to be their property and in such situation question of fact is involved in' the matter, for which only the Civil Court is competent to decide the same after conducting proper trial and after recording evidence of the parties. Besides this, the reports of the Mukhtiarkar and Sub-Registrar concerned called by the learned trial Court also did not support the claim of the respondents No.1 to 16 in respect of their title over the land in question.
9. In case Miraj Khan (supra), -it has been held that main consideration to be kept in view would be, whether the continuance of the proceedings before the trial forum would be futile exercise, wastage of time and abuse of process of Court or not. If on the basis of facts admitted and patent on record no offence can be made out, then it would amount to abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue with the trial. In the present case, the applicants have based their possession on the basis of title documents viz. Sale deed which too about more than 30 years old, therefore, no offence under Illegal Dispossession Act is made out and the continuance of proceedings would be sheer abuse of process of law.
10. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, I am of the considered view that even on the admitted facts no offence can be made out against the applicants as the dispute is entirely of civil nature which has been converted into criminal proceedings with ulterior motives. Accordingly, the proceedings of Sessions Case No.201 of 2011 pending before the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu are hereby quashed. The respondents are, however, at liberty to approach the competent court of law to get their grievance redressed.
' The Criminal Revision Application stands disposed of along with listed applications.