' MUHAMMAD YOUNIS THAHEEM, J.---Through the instant writ petition, petitioner has called in question the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Peshawar dated 09.12.2015 whereby complaint filed by petitioner under section 4(1) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner initially filed complaint under section 3 of ibid Act in the Court of Sessions Judge, Peshawar against Radat Khan alias Toray and Mushtaq son of Jan in respect of landed property including Shamilat-e-Deh measuring 36 Kanals 12 Marlas bearing Khasra No,1096 alleging therein that petitioner being owner in possession of the property in question was forcibly dispossessed by respondents who were armed with firearms entered into their landed property on 28.06.2014 at 08:30 p.m. In the garb of police uniform under the pretext of court order for attachment under section 145, Cr.P.C. And on the next day as it was first day of Ramzan they could not do anything, however they inquired from different Courts about the said attachment order if any but up till 11.07.2014, they could not find any such order and then they contacted the respondents regarding their said act as who replied that they needed the said land, hence they had taken the possession. After gaining knowledge regarding forcible dispossession by respondents by committing fraud in garb of Court order under section 145, Cr.P.C., they filed complaint under section 3 of ibid Act. Prior this complaint, complainant submitted application to the Police Station concerned to proceed against respondent No,1 and then filed said complaint. The learned Sessions Judge sent the matter for disposal to the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Peshawar for further proceedings, directed the SHO concerned for inquiry and ultimately the said initial complaint was withdrawn by the complainant.
3. The present petitioner filed another complaint under section 4(1) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 for punishing and conviction of accused/respondents for taking forcible possession of landed property bearing Khasra No,1096 measuring 26 Kanals of Shamilat land on 06.04.2015 and for restoration of his possession. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the SHO for inquiry and report in view of section 5 of ibid Act who submitted the same and the matter was put to arguments on maintainability of the complaint. After hearing arguments on maintainability the learned Court dismissed the complaint being not maintainable and discharged the accused from the charges mainly on the ground that respondents do not belong to Qabza group/land grabbers and 26 Kanal land is Shamilat land in the following way. The relevant portion of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar is reproduced below: ' "Complainant/petitioner might have been forcibly dispossessed by respondents from the land in question but there were other remedies available to respondents under Ordinary Law of land to which he might have resorted for restitution of possession." and ' "in view of the above facts, I am of the firm view that in the case in hand dispute between the parties is ordinary dispute over possession of immoveable Shamilat property and the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act do not attract at all."
4. Arguments in motion heard and record carefully gone through.
5. From the perusal of record placed on file in shape of inquiry report, Naqsha Tasweri and Akas shajra Kishtwar reveals that suit property measuring 26 Kanals consists of Shamilat land. The matter relating to the village common property which is governed and regulated by village administration paper commonly known as Sharat-wajib-ul-Arz. In each Revenue Estate of District there is its own Wajib-ul A Arz and the matter relating to possession, partition, its improvements, remuneration etc are dealt with under Wajib-ul-Arz. So Naqsha Tasweri annexed by petitioner transpires that area measuring 26 Kanals is common village property and all the owners in the estate are also common owners therein. So no one can claim the village common property as exclusively possessed property. The present petitioner purchased the shares in the village common property i.e, Shamilat so if any member of proprietary body wanted to separate his share of ownership he can file partition application under Wajib-ul Arz of the A village read with West Pakistan Revenue Land Revenue Act 1967 by impleading all the members of the proprietary body in its application for partition under section 135 of Land Revenue Act.
6. So we hold that the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Peshawar is well reasoned, based on law and no exception could be taken against it particularly relating to the Shamilat. The claim or the relief asked from this Court pertains to deep factual controversy which could be resolved by adopting legal course by invoking jurisdiction of proper and competent Court of law. The learned counsel failed to point out any illegality or miscarriage of justice caused to him worth consideration, so the instant petition being bereft of merit is dismissed in limine.