' This single judgment is intended to decide the Writ Petition No, 538/2014 and 539/2014 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the above said petitions.
2. Through the above mentioned writ petitions, the orders dated 8.5.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni, District Sahiwal have been called in question, whereby the complaints, filed by Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Akram, petitioners in the above titled writ petitions (hereinafter will be referred as the petitioners) under Section 3/4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 have been dismissed.
3. Initially the above mentioned orders were impugned through Criminal Revisions, but as in the matters, writ petitions were competent, hence the Revision Petitions were converted in the writ petitions, in hand.
4. The facts are that the petitioners, filed two private complaints, against the Respondents No, 2 to 5 (hereinafter will be referred as the respondents), with the contention that through Mutation No, 1182 dated 8.2.2011, they became owner of Square No, 42, Kila No, 17, falling in Khata No, 21, Khatooni No, 94, in Mauza Chichawatni, District Sahiwal; that the respondents who belonged to Qabza Group, on 8.4.2011, while armed with firearms had forcibly taken possession of the above mentioned property of the petitioners; that when the petitioners alongwith Rasheed Ahmad and Haji Taj Muhammad went to the respondents, they extended threats of dire consequences by saying that the petitioners will be killed and the possession will not be restored to them and that the petitioners through applications also approached the concerned SHO, but no action. Hence it was requested that the respondents may be summoned, proceeded accordingly and not only punished, but possession of the property in question may also be restored in favour of the petitioners.
5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, before whom the above mentioned complaints were filed, carried on the due proceedings, during which recorded cursory evidence of the petitioners and the witnesses produced by them and also obtained the reports from the Police and finally passed the impugned orders, whereby the complaints were dismissed.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant writ petitions have been preferred with the contention and the grounds that sufficient oral as well as documentary proof in support of the facts and circumstances narrated in the complaints were brought before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, but erroneously not considered and the impugned orders, which being purely illegal, are not sustainable.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has advanced his arguments, in the above mentioned lines and the grounds. Whereas the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the writ petitions by holding the impugned orders to be quite justified and demand of the situation.
8. Arguments of both the sides have been heard and the record has been perused.
9. The record shows that in the complaints, on two occasions, it was mentioned only that the respondents were belonging to Qabza Group. In the cursory statement, again the petitioners and their witnesses had only alleged the respondents to be from Qabza Group. Neither in the complaint nor the statements, any detail had been given on the basis of which the respondents had been alleged to be of the above said group.
10. Mere mentioning of above mentioned two words that the respondents belonged to Qabza Group was not sufficient to hold them so and as such the complaints under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 were not competent and proceedable. In this regard the august supreme Court of Pakistan has given an exhaustive judgment reported as 'Habib Ullah and others Vs: Abdul Manan and others' (2012 SCM R 1533), whereby criteria for filing the complaints under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 have been settled and that mere mentioning that the respondents belong to Qabza Group or Qabza Mafia is not sufficient to file the above said complaint as the above mentioned Act is applicable only to those accused persons who have credentials or antecedents of Qabza Group and remained involved in illegal activities ' and belonged to a gang of land grabbers or land mafia. For guidance, the relevant portion of the above said judgment is reproduced herein below: "Complainant while appearing as PW-1 has not stated a single word that the appellants belong to a Qabza Group and were involved in such activities. So it is the complainant side who has failed to establish that the appellants belong to Qabza Group or they were land grabbers. The'complainant side has not produced any evidence oral or documentary to establish that the appellants had the credentials or antecedents of being property grabbers. So, it was a dispute between, two individuals over immovable property and as per allegation the appellants have taken illegal possession of the property, being rightful owners, from the tenant who has taken the property on rent and committed the default in payment of rent and electricity bills inasmuch as the appellants do not belong to a class of property grabbers or Qabza Group and no case was made out under Section 3 of Illegal dispossession Act. Reference is made to the judgment of a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court in Zahoor Ahmad and others Vs. The State and others (PLD 2007 Lahore 231) wherein it has been held that the Illegal dispossession Act, 2005 was restricted in its scope and applicability only to those cases where as dispossession from immovable property has allegedly come about through the hands of a class or group of persons who could qualify as property grabbers/ Qabza Group/land mafia and the said Act was being invoked and utilized by the aggrieved persons against those who have credentials or antecedents being. Members of the Qabza Group or land mafia. It was further held that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 has been found to be completely nugatory to its contents as well as objectives. The aforesaid view was upheld by this Court in the case of 'Mobashir Ahmad Vs. The State' (PLD 2010 SC 665). In view of the case-law referred above, it is established that the said law is applicable only to those accused persons who have the credentials or antecedents of Qabza Group and are involved in illegal activities and belong to the gang of land grabbers or land mafia. In the case in hand it has been found that by us that there is no evidence oral or documentary to establish that the appellants belong to the Qabza Group or land grabbers. Even otherwise no such allegation has been made against the appellants in the complaint filed by the respondent Abdul Marian or in the FIR for the same incident lodged, on the next day, or by the PWs in their depositions made by them before the learned Trial Court. Even PW-3 Azhar Hussain, I0 during the cross-examination has admitted that he had never heard about the appellants involvement in such like activities or their belonging to the group of land grabbers Or Qabza Group rather the complainant is involved in such like cases."
11. In the case in hand, admittedly, neither any previous history or record, of the respondents, is with the petitioners nor brought on the record, on the basis of which they can be termed as Qabza Group or Land Mafia. Whereas as stated above, a complaint, under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is only competent against person(s) belonging to the above mentioned class.
12. Furthermore, it has been observed that the above mentioned mutation, through which the petitioners had claimed ownership of the land in question, had been cancelled by the competent forum.
13. It has also been found that a civil suit filed by the petitioners against Muhammad Riaz (Respondent No, 3) and the Province of Punjab, is also sub-judice in the Court of learned Civil Judge at Sahiwal, whereby the petitioners have claimed themselves to be in possession of the property in question and that the respondents may be restrained from interfering into the said possession. The said suit is nothing but a contradictory stance, as in the above mentioned complaints, the petitioners have claimed that they have been dispossessed by the respondents, but in the suit, they have sought protection from their dispossession and interference into their possession.
14. For what has been discussed above, as no illegality, infirmity or any other defect, in the impugned order could be found, hence the same do not warrant any interference in writ jurisdiction.
15. Resultantly, both the writ petitions in hand, being devoid of any merit and force are dismissed.