KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---This single judgment will dispose of both the captioned criminal revision applications, which have been directed against two orders dated 05.01.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shandadpur in Sessions Case No. 592 of 2014 and Sessions Case No.166 of 2015, emanating from complaints filed under the provisions of sections 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, whereby the applications under section 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, filed by the applicants in their respective complaints were dismissed.
2: Briefly the facts of the case are that huge landed property admeasuring 547-28 acres comprising of dozens of survey numbers situated in deh Dhabro and deh Ranjho Bagrani, Taluka Shandadpur , District Sanghar shown in the memo. of the revision applications is involved in the matter . It is stated that the accused belonged to a land grabbers group and have forcibly dispos sessed the applicants from the subject land on 15.10.2014 unlawfully .
Hence the applicants have filed their respective complaints under the provisions of sections 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 before the learned Court of learned Sessions Court, which are now pending decision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shandadpur . The applicants moved their respective applications under the provisions of section 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 with the prayer to put them in possession and control of the subject land as an interim relief. The learned trial Court vide impugned orders dated 05.01.2016 has dismissed the aforesaid applications filed by the applicants, who being aggrieved by the said orders dated 05.01.2016, have preferred captioned criminal revision applications.
3. It is, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are co-sharers in the subject land with the other co-sharers by way of purchase from the earlier owners of the said land on the basis of oral statements recorded before the Assis tant Mukhtiarkar , Taluka Shandadpur in the year 1994 and to substantiate his contention, the learned counsel for the applicants has referred to the copies of entries of revenue record filed as annexure-E, available at pages-45 to 58; and, that the applicants along with their co-sharers, who were in lawful possession of the subject land, have been forcibly and illegally dispossessed by the respondents/accused on 15.10.2014; that the learned trial Cour t without considering such aspects of the case, has dismissed the applications filed by the applicants seekin g restoration of possession of the subject land, as an interim relief, vide impugned orders dated 05.01.2016, which per learned counsel, are illegal orders. He, therefore, prays that the criminal revisions applications may be allowed and the possession of the subje ct land may be restored to the applicants.
4. The learned Advocate for the private respondents has mainly contended that the three witnesses have been examined by the complainant and there remains only few witnesses to be examined; and, that the respondents are not in possession of the applicants land; and, that the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court are legal.
He, therefore, prays that the criminal revision applications may be dismissed.
5. Learned A.P.G adopting the arguments of the learned counsel for the private respondents, has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court and she prays for dismissal of the aforesaid revision applications.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record.
7. According to provisions of The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 person, who can approach the court of competent jurisdiction for seeking A relief under the provisions of the Act ibid, having been defined, are namely owner and/or occupier of the subject property . Definitions of occupier and owner for the purpose of applicability of the provisions of the Act ibid, have been provided by clauses (c) and (d) respectively of Section 2 of the Act ibid, which read as under:-- "2(c) "occupier" means the person who is in lawful possession of a property; "2(d) "Owner" means the person, actually owns the property at the time of his dispossession, otherwise than through a process of law ."
8. For the sake of convenient subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Act ibid and Subsection (1) of Section 4, under which the Court can take cognizance of the of fence under the provisions of The Act ibid, are reproduced: - "3. Prevention of illegal possession of property , etc.--- (1) No one shall enter into or upon any property to dispossess, grab, control or occupy it without having any lawful authority to do so with the intention to dispossess, grab, control or occupy the property from owners or occupier of such property .
"4 Cognizance of offence.--- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any law for the time being in force, the contravention of section 3 shall be triable by the Court of Session on a complaint."
9. Manifestly the instant matters involve the question relating to the restoration of possession of the subject property as an interim relief pending the aforementioned case based on I.D. Complaints before the learned trial Court. The relevant provision under which such interim relief is to be considered is subsection (1) of section 7 of The Act ibid, which reads as under:-
7. Eviction and mode of recovery as an interim relief,---( 1) If during trial the Court is satisfied that a person is found prima facie to be not in lawful possession, the Court shall, as an interim relief direct him to put the owner or occupier , as the case may be, in possession.
10. From the above, it is clear that for attraction of provisions of The Act ibid and in order to get the benefit of subsection (1) of Section 3 of The Act ibid, the complainant has to prima facie establish before the court that he is lawful owner or was occupier of the subject property; that accused had entered into or upon the said property without having any lawful authority; that the accused had done so with the intention to dispossess or to grab or to control or to occupy the said property; and, that the order as an interim relief regarding restoration of the possession of the subject property to the complainant under the Provisions of Section 7 of The Act ibid, pending trial, can only be passed when prima facie it is established to the satisfaction of the Court that the complainant is a lawful owner of the subject property; that he was illegally and forcibly dispossessed by the accused; and, that the accused is in an unlawful possession of the subject property .
11. From a perusal of the record, it would be seen that the applicants, claiming themselves to be the owners of the subject land comprising of dozens survey numbers situated in deh Dhabro and deh Ranjho Bagrani, Taluka Shandadpur , District Sanghar by way of purchase through oral statements from the alleged earlier owners, have filed the complaints under the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act. A perusal of copies of the entries 436, 270, 424, 442, 259, 198 and 276 of Form-VII annexed with the petition as Annexures-E available at pages-45 to 58 would reveal that 547-28 acres of land was shown to have been purchased by various persons including the applicants from Shah Muhammad, Qadir Bux, Azhar Ali, Majnoon, Rasheed-u r-Rehman, Ghulam Kadir and Muhammad Soomar and others through alleged oral statements showing consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-, Rs.1,88,000/-, Rs.150,000/- Rs.20,000/-, Rs.3,10,500/-, Rs.22,500/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively and genuineness and validity of sale mutations on the basis whereof the applicants and others claim their ownership are yet to be established, moreover , not a single document, showing that the applicants ever remained in possession of the subject land has been brought on record; the respondents also claim to have purchased the subject land measuring 364-00 out of 547-28 acres through an alleged agreement of sale dated 29.8.2014 from brothers of the complainant namely Fida Hussain, Muhammad Anwar , Gul Muhammad, Muhammad Hanif, Sikandar Ali, Khalid Hussain, Muhammad Rafique, Muhamm ad Allam, Ali Asghar , Muhammad Illyas, Abdul Waheed, Muhammad Shahbaz and Ayaz Ali, who are alleged to have purchased the said land along with the complainants through alleged oral statements as discussed above. It further reveals that no document showing the ownership of the persons from whom the complainants and his above named brothers are shown to have purchased the subject land admeasuring 547-28 acres has been brought on record. In the case of Muhammad Lehrasab Khan v. Mst.
Aqeel-un-Nisa and others (2001 SCMR 338), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that "A mutation is not a document of title and it by itself does not confer any title, right or interest and burden of proof lies on the party who seeks to establish the genuineness of the transfer in his favour . Although record of rights are not instruments of title but unless rebutted, presumption of truth is attached to them . In another case of Rehmatullah and others v. Saleh Khan and others (2007 SCMR 729), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that "Any person who is acquiring title through mutation, the burden of proof of proving transaction embodied in mutation, is upon him. It is also settled law that mutation by them selves do not create title and the persons deriving title thereunder have to prove that transferred did part with the ownership of the property subject of mutation in favour of the transferee and that the mutation was duly entered and attested as law laid down by this Court in Hakim Khan's case (1992 SCMR 1832 ) and Muhammad Ali's case PLD 1993 Lah. 33 .
12. In such view -of the matter , I refrain myself from giving any finding on the assertions of the applicants regarding their claim of ownership over the subject property on the basis of alleged purported sale statements, as it may prejudice the case of either party . 'Moreover , prima facie .the possession of the applicants; complainants over the subject property could not be established as no evidence or any document has been produced by the applicants to prima facie establish that they were occupier of the subject property within the meaning of Section 2(c) of The Act ibid. In my humble view, in absence of any material establishing that applicants' earlier possession over the subject land, the contention of the learned advocate for the applicants that the applicants were in lawful possession of the subject land, at this juncture, is not tenable.
13. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that the applicants have failed to make out their case for grant of interim relief under the provision of Section 7 of The Act ibid and their applications seeking such relief were liable to be dism issed. I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders, passed by the learned trial Court, dismissing the aforementioned applications filed by the applicants and no exception can be taken to such orders of the learned trial Court. Learned advocate for the applicants has also not been able to point out any illegality and/or any jurisdiction infirmity in the impugned orders, passed by the learned trial Court, attracting the interference of this court in its revisional jurisdiction. These Criminal Revision Applications being devoid of merit are liable to be dismissed.
14. Above are the reasons of short order announced by me on 19.11.2018 whereby these instant Criminal Revision Applications were dismissed.
15. It needs no reiteration that the observations made herein above are tentative in nature and shall not influence the learned trial Court, while deciding the aforementioned cases.