ABDULLAH BALOCH, J.----This judgment disposes of Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2019 filed by the appellant Eid Muhammad son of Abdul Nabi, against the judgement dated 21st November 2019 (hereinafter referred as, "the impugned judgment ") passed by learned Sessions Judge Mastung, (hereinafter referred as, "the trial Court "), whereby the appellant was convicted under Section of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 ("Act of 2005 ") and sentenced to suffer seven (07) years R.I. with fine of Rs.50000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) or in default thereof to further suffer two (02) months S.I. The appellant was also directed to pay. Rs.200,000/- as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P;C. to the complainant and in default thereof, he was directed to undergo to six (06) months S.I.
The possession of the property was directed to be restored to the complainant.
2. Facts of the case are that the private respondent (Abdul Baqi) filed a complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 2005 before the learned trial Court against the appellant stating therein that he is lawful owner of land bearing Khewat No.04, Khatooni No.15, Khasra Nos.378, 379, 386, 387, 395, 396, 397, 413, 415, Qita-9, measuring total 45 Rods, 03 Polls, situated at Mouza Muhammad Waris Tapa Kanak Tehsil and District Mastung (hereinafter referred as "the land in question" ). It is further averred in the complaint that the land in question is inherited property of the complainant (respondent No.1), which was entered into his father's name in the first settlement during the year 1962-64 and thereafter the same was transferred in the name of complainant. However , four years back the appellant (accused) with mala fide intention to grab the land in question illegally dispossessed the complainant and took the illegal possession of land in question and started cultivation upon the land in question.
3. After filing of the complaint, report was sought from Tehsildar , Levies Thana Wald Khan Mastung, which was accordingly submitted, whereafter the trial Court has taken the cognizance of the matter , declared co-accused Ameen Ullah son of Eid Muhammad as absconder and indicated the charge to the appellant (accused), who denied the same and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution produced four witnesses. Whereafter , the appellant was examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C. He also recorded his statement on oath under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
However , the appellant (accused) has failed to produce any witness in his defence. On conclusion of trial and after hearing arguments, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above in para No. 1. Whereafter , the instant /appeal has been filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record with their valuable assistance. The record reveals that the respondent No.1 (complainant) filed the complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, against the appellant and others, stating therein that the property in question is his inherited property being devolved upon him from his forefathers, but about four years ago the appellant and others illegally dispossessed him from the land in question and laid their forcible entrance in the property with intention to grab the same. Record further reveals that aforesaid complaint was contested by the appellant before the learned trial Court and after inquiry and submission of report by the Tehsildar concerned, the learned trial Court took the cognizance of the matter and commenced with the trial, which culminated into awarding sentence to the appellant.
5. It has been observed that the main object and purpose of promulgation of the Act of 2005 is to curb the activities of the property grabbers. Therefore, the Act applies only to dispossession from immovable properties by property grabbers/land mafia. However , the Act of 2005 does not apply to the alleged cases of dispossession by ordinary persons who cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be termed as land grabbers/land mafia/Qabza Group. This includes cases of disputes over possess ion of immovable properties between co-owners or co-sharers, between landlord and tenants, between persons claiming possession on the basis of inheritance, between persons claiming to be owners of the land on the basis of title documents in their favour , or cases with a background of an on-going private dispute over the relevant property . Perusal of entire record i eluding the complaint filed by the appellant transpires that the respondent No.1 (complainant) has even not alleged that the appellant (accused) belonged to Qabza Mafia or he is a land grabber , but the trial Court has failed to consider this important aspect of the case and has wrongly taken cognizance of the matter . The respondent No.1 (complainant) has failed to prove the charge against the appellant linking him with the Land Mafia or Qabza Group. The contents of complaint are also silent to the effect that as to why the C respondent No.1 (complainant) kept mum for a long period of four years after his illegal dispossession from the property in question and did not file complaint or initiate any legal proceedings against the appellant before any compet ent forum. Non-approaching to any legal forum by the respondent No.1 (complainant) for redressal of his grievance and keeping silence for four years is suggestive of the fact that there had existed any civil dispute in between the parties. Even otherwise, the mode of dispossession was also not mentioned in the complaint coupled with long-standing possession of the appellan t (accused) are enough to hold that the appellant (accused) did not belong to class of property grabbers or Qabz a group and that's why no such allegations have been leveled, hence no case under Section 3 of the Act of 2005 is made out rather it appears from the record that the matter in between the parties pertains to a civil nature and could be decided by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Amroze Khan v. Motaser Khan and others 2013 MLD 1564 . The relevant portion reads as under: "22. What transpires from the above discussion is that neither the respondents are members of some land mafia or Qabza group nor they have illegally dispossessed any one from the disputed property . The Act, 2005 was specifically promulgated for curbing the illegal activities of the land mafia/Qabza Group/land grabbers and thus is only applicable to those cases where it is shown that the accused belong to any of the above category i.e. land mafia/Qabza Group/land grabbers and have illegally dispossessed someone to grab his property . The appellant has miserably failed to show that at any point of time he was put into physical possession of the disputed property from where he was dispossessed by the respondents. On the contrary , it has been established by cogent evidence that the respondents are living in the disputed property since 2007. Therefore, the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 are not attracted to the present case. It may be clarified that the Act, 2005 would come to the rescue of not only the owner of an immovable property but also to the occupier of an immovable property . The dispute between the appellant, Bakht Begum on the one side and the respondents 1 to 5 on the other side clearly is a dispute of civil nature and the same has to be decided by a civil Court having jurisdiction."
6. In view of the above circumstances, the trial Court has wrongly taken the cognizance of the matter and illegally reached to a wrong conclusion by awarding conviction and sentence to the appellant (accused). The impugned judgement suffers from illegalities and irregularities as the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and does not falls within the purview of illegal Dispo ssession Act, 2005. For the above reasons, the appeal is accepted. The impugned judgement dated 21st November 2019 passed by learned Sessions Judg e Mastung, is set-aside and the appellant (accused) Eid Muhammad son of Abdul Nabi is acquitted of the charge. The appellant is on bail; his bail bonds stands discharged after lapse of appeal period.
The parties are at liberty to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of their grievance.