' ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.---Through this appeal, the appellant has assailed the legality and propriety of the order dated 13-12-2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thatta, dismissing the Private Complaint No. 11 of 2014 filed by the appellant against the respondents under. Section 3, 4, 6, 7 & 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.
2. Precisely, the relevant facts leading to the instant appeal are that, the appellant filed the private complaint against the respondents stating therein that an area of 5.09 acres out of land bearing Survey No.504 (3.09 acres) and 505(2 acres) situated at Deh Khanpur Tapoo Daroo Taulka Mirpur Bathoro District Thatta/Sujawal, is/was reserved for the graveyard of the Meghwar Community, such mutation entry has also been effected in the revenue record vide entry No.67; per complainant the Meghwar Community has constructed a temple and made the arrangements of funeral rights at the said land and there are graves of the community. He has alleged that on 10- 05-2013 at about 05 P.M, the proposed accused have illegally dispossessed the complainant/appellant party from the graveyard and have occupied it without any lawful and legal means.
3. On filing of the above complaint, the trial Court called comments from the Mukhtiarkar Mirpur Bathoro, who vide his report dated 14-2-2014 available on record did not confirm the facts as alleged by the appellant.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is against law and facts as according to him the appellant was in possession of the land in question but has been dispossessed by the private respondents on 10-05-2013 without any justification. He further contended that the report of Mukhtiarkar is not in consistent with the report of Assistant Commissioner, Mirpur Bathoro, dated: - 02-07-2013, as such according to him the learned trial Court without holding further enquiry in the matter dismissed the claim of the appellant without assigning any good reason, therefore, he was of the view that the impugned order on this score is liable to be set aside. During the course of arguments, he also reiterated the same facts and grounds which he has urged in the memo of appeal. However; in support of his argument he has relied upon cases of (i) Muhammad Younis v. Sahahid Cheema and 2 others reported in 2006 PCr.LJ 636, (ii) Muhammad Ikhlaq and another v. Mst.Hameeda Naqvi and another reported in 2010 M LD 523 and (iii) Mst.Haseena Begum v. Salam Jawed reported in 2009 YLR 2158 and (iv) Muhammad Afzal and another v. Muhammad Ashraf and 5 others reported in 2006 PCr.LJ 1391.
5. Learned Assistant Prosecutor General present in Court has supported the impugned judgment by arguing that the impugned judgment is legal and has been passed by trial court after proper appreciation of record.
6. Heard the parties advocates and perused the record.
7. It is the case of the appellant that on 10-05-2013 the private respondents had forcibly occupied the land which is/was reserved for graveyard of the Meghwar Community but this fact did not confirm by the Mukhtiarkar Mirpur Bathoro in his report dated 14-02-2014 available on record. The said Mukhtiarkar in his report has also mentioned that the A private respondents are residing in the premises in question since many years. Not only this, he has also mentioned that eight other families of Meghwar Community are also residing in the land reserved for the graveyard.For the sake of convenience it would be appropriate to reproduce the some portion of report of Mukhtiarkar Mirpur, Bathoro, which reads as follows:-- "It is further submitted that the complainant has complained that proposed respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have illegally dispossessed the complainant party from the some portion of the land belonging to the graveyard. In this connection it is submitted that I personally checked the possession / occupation of each and every proposed respondent. The respondent No.1, 3 & 4 are the residential possessee of the land, which does not belong to the area of the graveyard. These persons are the residential possessee of this area along with their families since last several decades. This land is an Estate land and does not come under the area of the graveyards.
However; the proposed respondent Nos. 2 and 5 are the residential possessees of the land which comes under the area of graveyard but their possession is very old having many decades.
Besides this eight families of Megh war Community are also residing there.
' It is further submitted that my spot Enquiry reflects that all the proposed respondents have not illegally dispossessed the complainant party on 10-05-2013 as alleged by complainant"
8. The above report is clear, left no room that the private respondents had ever dispossessed the complainant party, if the complainant party was dispossessed by the private respondents on 10- 05-2013 then the questions arises why not complainant party immediately report the matter to the concerned quarter for redressal of his grievances. The private complaint has been filed on 07-01- 2014 after about seven months of the alleged incident for which absolutely no explanation has been furnished for remaining mum for a long time. This aspect of the case leads to me to draw the inference that perhaps the complainant has filed the complaint against the private respondents after due deliberation and consultation; and if under the aforementioned facts and circumstances this case is allowed further to proceed, it will amounts to abuse of process of the Court.
9. As far as the report of the Assistant Commissioner dated 02.07.2013 relied by the counsel for the appellant is concerned, this report does not indicate that any incident has taken place on 10-05- 2013. Even does the report of Mukhtiarkar Mirpur Bathoro, dated 14-02-2014 is a latest report on the basis of spot inquiry. Therefore, the appellant has failed to substantiate his claim as alleged in the complaint. Besides the ingredients / elements of Section 3(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 are also missing in the case. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant has been perused and considered by me but the facts of cited cases are distinguishable from the facts of present case, therefore, not helpful for the appellant.
10. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case no perversity, illegality and incorrectness have been found in the impugned order. Learned trial court while passing impugned order has appreciated all the points involved in this case. No illegality has been pointed out. I, therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case find no merit in this Criminal Acquittal Appeal, which is dismissed accordingly along with listed application being M.A. No. 3264 of 2015 and M.A. No. 3265 of 2015.