' Through instant criminal revision application, applicant has assailed the order dated 03.08.2013, passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 15/2013 (Re: Muhammad Qasim v. Station House Officer P.S. Khudabad and others), whereby application moved by applicant under Sections 3 & 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was dismissed.
2. Precisely, relevant facts for disposal of instant criminal revision application, are that applicant and Respondent No. 2 purchased agricultural land bearing S.No. 626/1 to 3 and 335 admeasuring 14-28 acres, situated in Deh Bhand Tapo Khudabad, Taluka and District Dadu; the Respondent No. 2 made false and fabricated agreement and applicant never put signature on it. On 28.01.2011, all the private respondents in collusion with other Ghunda elements duly armed with deadly weapons forcibly entered into the land, illegally and unlawfully dispossessed the applicant; all the respondents belong to land mafia and land grabbers having their direct approach and relation with the Ghunda persons, professional land grabbers, who illegally, unlawfully and forcibly dispossessed the applicant, grabbed the property by control and occupied the said land, thus applicant approached the Court.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant, inter alia, contends that impugned order is not in accordance with law; learned trial Judge dismissed the application moved under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 on two pleas (i) that applicant being attorney was not competent to file direct complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act and (ii) learned trial Court considered the merits minutely without allowing the applicant to adduce the evidence, therefore, impugned order is not in accordance with law; trial Court was under legal obligation to consider the application as well reports called from police and Mukhtiar kar, wherein it was categorically mentioned that according to applicant and his witnesses, Respondent No. 2 alongwith his companions forcibly occupied the subject matter land in the year 2011, thus trial Court has traveled beyond its jurisdiction.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for Respondents No. 02 to O.S argued that father of applicant and Respondent No. 2 jointly purchased subject matter land; Respondent No. 2 was having share of 50 paisa; thereafter, father of the applicant entered into sale agreement thereby Respondent No. 2 filed civil suit, that suit was dismissed and appeal is pending for adjudication. He further contends that learned trial Court has rightly dismissed application filed by applicant on the plea that applicant being attorney was not competent to file such application/direct complaint. In support of his contention, learned counsel for Respondents No. 02 to 08 relief upon 2008 MLD 1702 (Karachi), PLD 2007 Supreme Court 423, PLD 2007 Peshawar 123, PLD 2007 Lahore 231, 2010 SCMR 1254, PLD 2006 Karachi 221, 2007 MLD 808 (Lahore) and 2007 PCr. LJ 891 (Lahore).
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.G. At the very outset, contends that impugned order is in accordance with law; matter pertains to civil dispute and same is not falling within, the scope of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties as well learned A.P.G. And perused the record.
7. Before addressing the pleas, raised by learned counsel for respective parties, it may be conducive to refer the relevant para of the impugned order, which reads as under:-- "As per Revenue record the Respondent No. 02 Muhammad Ishaque is 0.50 paisa share owner of the case land by virtue of sale deed from its previous owners, and the claim of Respondent No. 02 Muhammad Ishaque is that applicant Muhammad Qasim had entered into sale agreement with the Respondent No. 02 Muhammad Ishaque for rest of 0.50 paisa share for total consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- and an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid to Muhammad Qasim in presence of witnesses Abdul Hameed S/o Muhammad Urs Lakho, Roshan A.I S/o Haji Mevo Khan Lakho, Muhammad Haroon Slo Adlio Khan Bhand and the present complaint shows that marginal witnesses of the sale agreement dated 2.02.2011 have been made as respondents in the present complaint, the Respondent No. 02 has alleged that they have been sued in the present complaint in order to pressurized them not to give evidence in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Dadu in respect of sale agreement dated 22.02.2011 which was executed by applicant and that the attorney is not competent to file the present complaint in presence of Muhammad Qasim who had appeared before Senior Civil Judge, Dadu and contesting the suit
8. While perusal of above coupled with record, it is surfaced that father of applicant Muhammad Qasim and Respondent No. 02 jointly purchased subject matter agricultural land in the year 2006 on equal shares hence the undisputed status of both applicant Mohammad Qasim and Respondent No. 2 is that of joint-owners' pertinent to mention that a co-owner can competently seek restoration of possession from co-owner, subject to establishing his/her possession pi and then dispossession unlawfully which seems to be lacking in the instant case. The complaint, no where, indicates that land, jointly purchased by these two, was partitioned; nor it indicates as to from which area of joint holding the Respondent No. 2 is in 'unlawful possession' or from which portion of such joint holding the applicant has been dispossessed.
9. Be as it may, let me refer the operative part of the judgment of honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of 'Habibullah v. Abdul Manan' (2012 SCMR 1533) wherein it is held that:-- "In view of the above case-law referred above, if 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,"
10. In the instant matter there is nothing to suggest the involvement of accused/respondents in illegal activities or their belonging to the gang of land grabbers or land mafia'. Mere words of one to be land grabber or land mafia would not be sufficient to dress him up with such status.
11. Further, it is matter of record that Respondent No. 02 filed civil suit on the basis of sale agreement; that suit was dismissed, however, civil appeal is pending for adjudication. At this moment, it is worth to add here that scope of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is very limited and cases of forcible dispossession by land mafia or the habitual land grabbers come/fall within such category. The dispute, prima facie, appears to be between two individuals. The applicant has claimed dispossession from hand of the respondents while the respondents are claiming the possession under a sale agreement. The position, being so, brings the case of the respondents out of the purview of Section 3 the Illegal Dispossession Act. I am supported in such a view with the case of 'Habibullah v. Abdul Manan' (2012 SCMR 1533) wherein it is held that:-- '8. Complianant while appearing as PM. 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 electribity 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.
12. Even otherwise, dispute is pending before civil Courts, which are Courts of ultimate jurisdiction for deciding the civil right of the party and status of a document could only be determined by a competent Civil Court. Consequently, I am of the considered view that instant case does not fall within the scope of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005;
13. With regard to plea that in criminal jurisdiction one cannot file direct complaint being attorney, it is worth to add here that in criminal administration of justice every person can bring the law into motion by lodging an FIR.
Needless to add that a complaint under this act is equaled with that of an FIR lodged under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Reference, if any, can well be made to the case of Inayatan Khatoon v. Mohammad Ramzan.
14. Now let's examine whether an attorney can act as a complainant or a witness in criminal matters or otherwise?. The term 'attorney', legally, in most general sense draws a picture of one who is not speaking for himself but for his 'principal'. As per Black's Law Dictionary (fourth addition) the term 'attorney' is defined as: 'In the most general sense this term denotes an agent or substitute, or one who is appointed and authorized to act in the place of or stead of another'
Per Marriam-Webster, it is defined as: ' one who is legally appointed to transact business on another 's behalf'
Since the 'Criminal administration of justice' recognizes only those as a witness or complainant who either have seen; heard or least perceived any fact towards the offence hence an 'attorney' , being not speaking of his own knowledge, would not fall within meaning of 'witness/ complainant'.
Thus, an attorney cannot legally, under such status of attorney, file the F.I.R or a criminal complaint.
15. Accordingly, I am of the clear view that the plea regarding competency of attorney to file direct complaint is having weight and thus anybody can bring the law into motion but not as an 'attorney'.
16. In view of above, instant application is dismisse.