Since all the parties are represented, this matter is being disposed of as admitted case. The writ petition was filed for issuance of a direction to respondents out of whom respondents 1 to 5 are Police Officers while respondent No,6 was Lt.-Col. Of Pakistan Army, not to harass the petitioners. On the first date of hearing, that is, 18-10-2000 the learned A.A.-G. Was called upon to assist the Court. As very serious allegations were levelled by the petitioners and the same were being controverted by the learned Addl.A.-G. So in order to find out the truth, Mian Jamil Akhtar, a Senior Advocate of this Court was appointed as a local commission to visit the spot and submit his report as to factual position obtaining at the spot.
2. Today, Mian Jamil Akhtar, Advocate has submitted his report. The report is very detailed one. The inspection was carried out in the presence of both the parties rather their counsel were also available. The local commission recorded statements of the petitioners who were cross-examined by Mian Najeeb, respondent 7. The statement of Mian Najeeb was also recorded at the spot. Mian Najeeb, respondent No,7 is general attorney of Muhammad Javed Babar who is residing in Canada.
The local commission present in Court submits that possession was taken by respondents through force but admits that according to his inquiry which he made from the inhabitants of the locality, no person from Pakistan Army came at the spot or took part in the whole affairs but only their names were used by the other respondents to take over the possession. Alongwith the report, the Commission has attached electricity bill, telephone bill, a certified copy of the plaint filed by Javed Babar through Muhammad Najeeb, his attorney and the order dated 3-10-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge in the aforesaid civil suit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since possession of the premises in question was taken illegally and by using force, the same should be ordered to be restored. Further submits that after taking forcible possession, the general attorney, namely, respondent No,7 Muhammad Najeeb filed a suit for possession and got the stay order just to give a blanket cover to his act of forcibly dispossessing the petitioners. He has referred to para. 3 of the plaint. To restore the possession to the petitioners which was taken without any legal justification and with force, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the case of Muhammad Aslam v. Assistant Commissioner and 4 others 1998 CLC 1596.
4. On the other hand, Ch.Abdur Rashid, Advocate for respondent No,7 submits that in fact the property in question belongs to Javed Babar and Muhammad Najeeb is his attorney. Further submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to make such inquiries in writ jurisdiction. Adds that civil suit is pending before the Civil Court and it would be more proper if the parties are directed to approach the Civil Court which is the Court of ultimate jurisdiction or the petitioners can approach the learned Magistrate for proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have minutely gone through the report submitted by the learned local commission. First of all, I would like to deal with the objection taken by learned counsel for respondent as to holding of the inquiry in writ jurisdiction. There is no denying the fact that normally this Court does not hold inquiries but there is no hard and fast rule as such. It is only for the reason that the superior Courts first like to know the views of the subordinate Courts/authority and the other State functionaries, but when there is clear abuse of powers/authority then this Court is under a Constitutional duty to ensure that the people are dealt in accordance with law. It may be observed that all the jurisdiction/authority is meant to do justice.
5-A. According to own admission of Muhammad Najeeb, respondent No,7 as made in para.3 of the plaint titled "Javed Babar v. Mian Ikhlaq Ahmad Guddo" the possession was obtained on 29-9- 2000. For facility para. 3 is reproduced hereunder:--
3. That after being possessed the land at the hands of defendants, the plaintiff with the intervention of the respectables of locality succeeded in obtaining possession of the property on 29-9-2000." The date of presentation of the suit before the Civil Court was 2-10-2000 admittedly after taking over forcible possession. As to factual position obtaining at the spot, according to report of the local commission, the keys were provided by respondent No,7 and in the presence of both the parties, the godowns were opened. Except godown Nos. 5 and 6, material belonging to the tenants was lying therein. Muhammad Najeeb in his statement made before the Commission admitted that he took over the possession from Ikhlaq Ahmad a month ago though despite asking of the local commission Muhammad Najeeb, respondent No,7 did not produce any order of ejectment against the petitioners. From the report of the local commission and the statements recorded by him including the statement of Muhammad Najeeb, respondent No,7 it is clear as day light, that the petitioners were the tenants of the property in question and they were dispossessed from the same without any order from any Court. Muhammad Arif Pehlwan produced before the local commission, the telephone bill in his name for the month of May, 2000. Though all the petitioners/tenants were cross-examined by Muhammad Najeeb, respondent No,7 but their tenancy was never disputed or denied and not even a single suggestion was put in that regard. Ch. Abdul Rashid, learned counsel for respondent No,7 very frankly stated that he has no objection to the report of the local commission rather conceded its correctness as to factual position obtaining at the spot is concerned. The proper place of procedure in any system of administration of justice is to help and not to thwart the grant to people of their rights. All the technicalities have to be avoided unless it be essential to comply with them on grounds of public policy. The ideal must always be a system that gives to every person what is his due share. The Courts have to safeguard the fundamental rights of every citizen and to protect the life, liberty and property from illegal, unauthorised and mala tide acts of omission and commission by any authority or person. In the instant case, the police functionaries whose duty is to protect the citizens against all kinds of excesses from any corner, but instead of performing their duty strictly within the four corners of law, the guardians of law themselves sided with the lawbreaker and acting in a most indecent haste deprived the petitioners of their legal possession of the property.
For what has been stated above, I am of the considered view that respondent No,7 with the help of statutory functionaries forcibly took over the possession of the property in question under the tenement of the petitioners without any legal order from any Court but through show of force which act of the respondents cannot be countenanced. The whole action of the respondents is illegal having got no sanction of law, so by accepting this writ petition, I direct respondent No,7 to put back the petitioners in possession within 24 hours. The writ petitioners are not a party to the civil suit. They, if so advised, may move a proper application in that regard. As to forcible dispossession of the petitioners from the property in question is concerned, they will approach the concerned S.H.O. Who would register a criminal case under the relevant provisions of law and proceed in the matter further.