1. AMER RAZA NAQVI, J.---Through this criminal revision the applicant has challenged the order dated 02.6.2012 passed in Cr. Misc. A. No,670/2011, which application was filed under sections 3 and 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. Through impugned order the complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed after conducting enquiry into the matter. Allegation in the application was that government has allotted a piece of land in Survey No,301 (1-7) acres in Deh Rahooja, Taluka New Sukkur and respondent has occupied some portion of that land and has constructed a shop of tailor master.
2. Applicant submits that he was allotted this land by revenue department through a document which applicant has filed at pages 37 and 89. Applicant further submits that this piece of land was allotted to a Madarsa which is registered and documents of such registration have been filed along with this application at pages Nos.33 to 36. Applicant further submits that the only defence taken by the respondent was that he has purchased this shop from one Pir Bux in the year 1998 but he has not produced any document of ownership of that shop. Applicant prays that matter may be remanded back to the trial Court for framing of charge and trial Court be directed to decide the matter after recording of evidence.
3. Notice was issued to respondent No,1 and he was served. He is present and argued the matter himself. He submitted that the area which is claimed by the applicant is not a plot but it is a depression of land and around it various old houses are constructed and his shop was also there which was purchased from one Pir Bux Junejo. He submits that he has never occupied the land belonging to the applicant. He further submits that this land is a government land and many occupants are occupying this area and on the basis of such possession land is to be regularized but the concerned authorities have written to him that since there is a ban imposed by Honourable Supreme Court vide order dated 28.11.2012 on fresh allotments therefore whenever this ban is lifted he will be issued ownership documents.
4. Learned D.P.G. Submits that it appears that there is some dispute over the land but the very application of the applicant does not disclose that on what date dispossession took place. He has submitted that learned trial Court has called detailed report from police and Mukhtiarkar, who have stated that there are old houses on the land. He further submits that it is not clear that what is exact description and location of the property and it is not clear from the record as well, it appears that the land belongs to the government. He has pointed out that the Survey number and area although is mentioned on Form-VII available at page 37 but even in that document exact area or location is not defined.
5. As submitted by learned D.P.G. The applicant has not disclosed the date and time when alleged dispossession has taken place. He has also rightly pointed out that in the claimed title documents no exact description of land is given. The applicant was asked that whether he was issued any document at the time of giving him possession of the plot as claimed by him. He submitted that the land is adjacent to his house and he is in occupation of this land for many decades. He submitted that for regularizing his possession he had applied for lease of this land in the name of a Madarsa Mehmoodia of which he is president since inception of the Madarsa. He submitted that no Madarsa could be established there, as there was a dispute of Malkana with the government and for such reason the land is still lying vacant. From the above facts it is clear that the description of land is not clear nor the manner and time of the alleged dispossession. It is also not clear that what is the exact location of the land claimed by the applicant. Applicant has failed to point out any sketch of the area through which any revenue department or any land governing agency has given the possession of the land to him by a proper document. The learned trial Court has called various reports from the concerned agencies including revenue department and police and after applying its mind has passed the impugned order. The learned trial Court has also observed that remedy through civil proceedings is always available to the applicant.
6. In above facts and circumstances in my opinion D.P.G. Is right when he argues that provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 are not applicable in this case. The impugned order is well reasoned and covers almost every aspect of the matter. In such facts and circumstances I do not find this matter in which any interference should be made in the impugned order. This revision application therefore is dismissed.