Protecting Property Rights: Understanding the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Introduction 

In the realm of legal safeguards against property-related crimes in Pakistan, the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 stands as a formidable shield to protect the rights of lawful property owners and occupants. This vital piece of legislation, formally known as the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was enacted with the explicit aim of preventing illegal or forcible dispossession by property grabbers. In this article, we will delve into the key provisions and significance of this act, shedding light on how it safeguards property rights throughout the country.

Scope and Applicability

The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, often referred to as the IDA (2005), casts a wide net of protection over immovable properties across the entirety of Pakistan. This means that whether you own or occupy property in Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad, or any other city or region in Pakistan, the IDA applies uniformly to shield your property rights from illegal dispossession.

Nature of Offence

One crucial aspect of the IDA is its classification of the offence  it addresses. Under this act, illegal dispossession is categorized as a non-cognizable offence . This classification means that law enforcement agencies cannot take immediate action without a court order. Instead, the matter must be brought before the Court of Session, ensuring that the due legal process is followed.

Procedural Framework

The IDA doesn’t operate in isolation but rather harmonizes with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. This synergy ensures that the legal procedures, investigation methods, and court proceedings under the IDA align with established criminal justice protocols. This integration with the existing legal framework enhances the effectiveness and efficiency of addressing cases under this act.

Penalties and Deterrence

To deter potential wrongdoers and property grabbers, the IDA prescribes stringent penalties for those who contravene its provisions. Any individual found guilty of violating the act can face a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years, coupled with a fine. This substantial penalty underscores the seriousness with which the law views illegal dispossession.

Compensation for Victims

The IDA goes a step further in safeguarding property rights by ensuring that victims receive compensation for their losses. According to the provisions of section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, victims of illegal dispossession are entitled to compensation. This measure not only provides a legal remedy to victims but also reinforces the act’s commitment to protecting the rights of property owners and occupants.

The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (provisions)

The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, often referred to as Act No. XI of 2005, is a significant piece of legislation enacted in Pakistan to address the critical issue of property grabbing and to protect the lawful owners and occupiers of immovable properties from illegal or forcible dispossession. This act, with its clear provisions and comprehensive approach, plays a crucial role in curbing the activities of property grabbers across the nation.

Scope and Commencement

This act, with the short title “The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005,” extends its protective umbrella to the entire geographical expanse of Pakistan. It came into force immediately upon its enactment, emphasizing the urgency of addressing property-grabbing concerns.

Defining Key Terms

The act provides precise definitions to ensure clarity and consistency in its application. Notably, it defines:

• Court: Referring to the Court of Session, which holds jurisdiction over matters arising from this act.
• Code: Identifying the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), as the governing legal framework.
• Occupier: Describing the lawful possessor of a property.
• Owner: Clarifying the individual who holds actual ownership of a property at the time of dispossession, excluding dispossesion through a legal process.
• Property: Specifying that this act pertains to immovable property.

Prevention of Illegal Possession

Central to the act is the prohibition of any unauthorized entry or occupation of property with the intent to dispossess, grab, control, or occupy it. This provision explicitly prohibits property grabbing and empowers legal action against those attempting such acts. Individuals found in violation of these provisions face penalties, including imprisonment for up to ten years and fines. Importantly, the act also ensures that victims receive compensation as per Section 544 A of the Code.

Jurisdiction and Cognizance

The act grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of Session to hear cases related to violations of its provisions, overriding other legal provisions. It categorizes the offence  as non-cognizable, meaning that law enforcement agencies cannot take immediate action without a court order. However, the court has the authority to direct the police to arrest the accused at any stage of the proceedings.

Investigation and Trial

The act outlines a streamlined process for investigation and trial. Upon receiving a complaint, the court may instruct the police to investigate the matter and submit their findings within fifteen days, although extensions are possible with valid reasons. Once the court takes cognizance of a case, it is obliged to proceed with the trial on a daily basis and conclude it within sixty days. The act further emphasizes that trial adjournments should be rare and only granted if deemed necessary for the interests of justice, with a maximum adjournment period of seven days.

Attachment of Property

Section 6 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, grants the court the power to attach property in certain circumstances. If the court is satisfied that none of the individuals were in possession immediately before the commission of the offence , it can order the attachment of the property until the final decision of the case. This provision is crucial in preventing further illegal occupation of the property during legal proceedings. Moreover, the court is empowered to determine the methods of managing the attached property to safeguard it against natural decay or deterioration.

Eviction and Mode of Recovery as an Interim Relief

Section 7 of the Act addresses the interim relief measures available during the trial. If the court is convinced that a person is prima facie not in lawful possession of the property, it can direct that individual to put the owner or occupier, depending on the case, back in possession. Importantly, if the person against whom such an order is passed fails to comply, the court can take necessary steps to ensure compliance. This includes authorizing officials to take possession, even if it requires the use of force. Additionally, the court can request police assistance for this purpose, and failure to provide such assistance can lead to departmental action against the responsible officer-in-charge of the police station.

Delivery of Possession to Owner or Occupier

Section 8 of the Act deals with the delivery of possession of the property to the owner or occupier following the conclusion of the trial. If the court finds that the owner or occupier was illegally dispossessed or that the property was grabbed in contravention of Section 3, it can, while passing an order under subsection (2) of that section, direct the accused or anyone claiming through them to restore possession of the property to the rightful owner or occupier, if not already done so under Section 7. In cases where it is necessary, the court can also instruct the officer-in-charge of the police station to provide assistance for the restoration of possession.

Application of the Code

Lastly, Section 9 of the Act highlights that unless otherwise provided in the Act itself, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, commonly known as Act V of 1898, shall apply to proceedings under this Act. This clause ensures that established legal procedures and protocols are followed, promoting fairness and consistency in the adjudication of cases related to illegal dispossession.

In summary, Sections 6 to 9 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, outline critical aspects of the legal process concerning illegal dispossession cases. These provisions empower the court to attach property, provide interim relief to victims, and ensure the delivery of possession to rightful owners or occupiers, all while adhering to the established Code of Criminal Procedure to uphold justice and property rights in Pakistan.

The Illegal Dispossession (Amendment) Act, 2017: Further Strengthening Property Rights

The Illegal Dispossession (Amendment) Act, 2017 ( Act No. XXVIII of 2017) is a significant legal development aimed at further amending the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (Act XI of 2005). This amendment seeks to enhance the legal framework surrounding property rights and the consequences for illegal dispossession in Pakistan.

Title and Commencement

This amending act, officially known as the Illegal Dispossession (Amendment) Act, 2017, came into force immediately upon enactment. It serves the vital purpose of refining and strengthening the existing framework provided by the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

Amendment to Section 3

Section 2 of the Amendment Act introduces significant changes to Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. A new sub-section (3) is added, which addresses cases where individuals forcibly and wrongfully dispossess property owners or occupiers, but their actions do not fall within the purview of sub-section (1) of Section 3. In such cases, the amendment prescribes penalties, including imprisonment for up to three years, fines, or both. This amendment also reinforces the requirement for compensating the person dispossessed, aligning it with the provisions of section 544A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Amendment to Section 5

Section 3 of the Amendment Act revises Section 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. Subsection (1) of Section 5 is amended to introduce a new proviso. This proviso empowers the court to direct a Magistrate or a revenue officer in the district to conduct a local inquiry when necessary under the Act. The report of the Magistrate or revenue officer is to be construed as evidence in the case, enhancing the fact-finding process.

Furthermore, a new subsection (4) is added to Section 5, granting the court the authority to award compensatory costs to the person complained against in cases where the complaint is found to be false, frivolous, or vexatious. These costs can extend up to five hundred thousand rupees, providing a safeguard against baseless complaints.

Amendment to Section 8

Section 4 of the Amendment Act makes a modification to Section 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The expression “sub-section (2)” is replaced with “sub-sections (2) and (3),” broadening the applicability of the amended provision.

Insertion of New Section 8A

Perhaps one of the most noteworthy additions, Section 5 of the Amendment Act inserts a new section, Section 8A, into the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. This new section addresses the right to appeal. It stipulates that any order made under sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of Section 3 and sub-section (1) of Section 8 shall be appealable before the High Court within thirty days of the order. This provision enhances the avenues for recourse and legal remedy available to parties involved in illegal dispossession cases.

In summary, the Illegal Dispossession (Amendment) Act, 2017, represents a significant legal refinement of the existing Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. It introduces amendments that strengthen penalties, facilitate fact-finding through local inquiries, and provide avenues for appeal. These changes collectively contribute to a more robust legal framework for protecting property rights and addressing illegal dispossession in Pakistan.

Background of the Act

In 1993, the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan embarked on a  comprehensive examination of the pressing issue of land grabbing in the country. The outcome was a significant report titled “Eradication of ‘Qabza’ Group Activities,” which delved into the intricate mechanics of land-grabbing operations and the subsequent erosion of the rule of law. This report identified a troublesome pattern of criminal groups engaging in land-grabbing activities, often with direct connections to law enforcement agencies and revenue officials. The tactics employed ranged from illicit possession of property to employing intimidation, forgery, and even filing fictitious legal claims. These groups, colloquially known as “Qabza” groups, operated openly in certain localities, backed by influential individuals in the social, political, and bureaucratic spheres, rendering them virtually untouchable by law enforcement agencies.

One of the key findings of the report was the distressing fact that victims of these Qabza groups were left with limited legal recourse due to the costliness, tediousness, and slow nature of the litigation process. This grim reality compelled many victims to opt for out-of-court settlements, acquiescing to the demands of these criminal groups. This compromised the constitutional right to property and exposed the fragility of the legal system in providing timely and effective remedies to victims. The Law and Justice Commission recognized the gravity of the situation and presented a potential solution in the form of the “Eradication of ‘Qabza’ Group Activities Act, 1993.” This proposed legislation aimed to criminalize illegal dispossession by Qabza groups, defining them as individuals or groups engaged in illegal possession or dispossession through fraudulent means, intimidation, duress, assault, or any other illegal means.

The proposed law sought to expedite the judicial process, mandating that trial courts decide cases under this act within a thirty-day window and limiting adjournments to two working days. Furthermore, the trial court was empowered to provide interim relief, including restoring ownership or attaching the property until a final determination was reached. However, despite the urgency highlighted by the Commission, it would take another twelve years before these recommendations were put into action.

The culmination of these efforts resulted in the enactment of the Illegal Dispossession Act in 2005. While the 2005 Act shared similarities with its 1993 predecessor, it aimed to address the complexities of land grabbing more comprehensively. Notably, the Act introduced the term “land-grabbing” and granted trial courts the authority to order police investigations and restore rightful ownership during both the trial and its conclusion. In an effort to expedite the legal process, the Act mandated that proceedings be concluded within 60 days, with adjournments limited to a maximum of seven days.

Despite its noble intentions, the 2005 Act faced challenges in effectively combating the deeply rooted issue of land grabbing. The multifaceted nature of the problem proved to be too intricate for the simplified provisions of the Act to fully address. While the Act represented a step in the right direction, its limitations underscored the need for more comprehensive measures to combat this pervasive issue.

The preamble of the Illegal Dispossession Act of 2005 serves as a clear declaration of its purpose: to curb the activities of property grabbers. This legislative effort aimed to provide protection to lawful property owners and occupants against the unlawful or forcible dispossession by these property grabbers. Interestingly, while the overarching goal revolves around addressing property grabbing activities, the Act itself does not explicitly refer to “property grabbers” in its definition of the criminal offence  of “illegal dispossession of property.”

Section 3(1) of the Act outlines the offence  of illegal dispossession of property, stating that no one shall enter a property to dispossess, control, or occupy it without lawful authority and with the intent to dispossess the owner or occupier. This offence  is punishable by a maximum of ten years’ imprisonment, accompanied by a fine. Moreover, the offender may also be ordered to compensate the victim. An important amendment was introduced through the Illegal Dispossession (Amendment) Act of 2016, which broadened the scope of the offence . This amendment established that forcibly and wrongfully dispossessing an owner or occupier, without the intent specified in the original offence , would also be a punishable offence , carrying a maximum sentence of three years’ imprisonment and fines, along with liability to compensate the victim.

Section 4 designates the offence  as non-cognizable, meaning that only the Court of Session, the senior criminal trial court, can hear cases based on a direct complaint from the aggrieved party. This contrasts with cognizable offence s, which can be reported directly to the police station in the form of a First Information Report.

To ensure an expeditious legal process, Section 5 mandates that the court proceed with the trial on a daily basis and reach a decision within sixty days. Upon receiving a complaint, the court is required to direct the police officer in charge of the relevant police station to investigate the matter and submit the investigation report to the court within fifteen days.

Section 6 empowers the court to attach the property when satisfied that none of the persons were in possession before the offence  was committed. In cases where the court is convinced that a person is not in lawful possession during the trial, Section 7 allows for interim relief, directing that the owner or occupier be put back in possession.

At the conclusion of the trial, if the court determines that illegal dispossession or property grabbing has occurred in violation of Section 3, the court may order the restoration of the property to the rightful owner or occupier.

In an effort to discourage baseless complaints of illegal dispossession, a further provision was introduced in the form of sub-section 3(4). This provision enables the court, upon finding a complaint false, frivolous, or vexatious, to award compensatory costs to the wrongfully accused.

A critical review of the case law and its developement since 2005 

The enactment of the Illegal Dispossession (Amendment) Act, 2016 introduced a crucial addition to the law—a new section, 8A, which granted the right to appeal any conviction under the Act to the High Court. However, the practical implementation of the Act witnessed a complex journey through Pakistan’s judicial system, marked by diverse interpretations and conflicting judgments.

Pakistan’s higher judiciary, comprising high courts and the Supreme Court, delivered a series of judgments that at times exhibited contrasting views on the scope and application of the Act. These judgments often revolved around the interpretation of the term “property grabbers” and the extent of its relevance to the offence  defined by the Act. Some decisions favored a broad interpretation of the crime of illegal dispossession, while others called for a narrower interpretation, limited to cases involving the so-called “land mafia” or property grabbers.

The Lahore High Court, in its pioneering judgment of Zahoor Ahmad v. The State [PLD 2007 Lah 23], expressed skepticism about the necessity of the 2005 Act, given the existing laws addressing illegal dispossession. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, while critiquing the legislative drafting of the Act, emphasized that its scope and applicability should be restricted to cases involving property grabbers, rather than applying it to ordinary cases of dispossession. He also highlighted the Act’s absence of a right to appeal, which he considered un-Islamic.

However, the Lahore High Court’s narrow view was not universally accepted. The Peshawar High Court, among others, held a similar stance, limiting the application of the Act to instances connected to illegal dispossession by the land mafia. In Jan Pervez v. Fazal Hussain [PLD 2007 Pesh 179], it was established that the Act could not be applied retrospectively to cases pending before its enactment.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court’s perspective on the Act was broader. In Rahim Tahir v. Ahmed Jan [PLD 2007 SC 423], the Supreme Court applied the Act to a case unrelated to the activities of property grabbers, highlighting the Act’s intent to protect the possession rights of lawful owners. This interpretation contrasted with the Lahore High Court’s position, showing the divergence in judicial viewpoints.

The Supreme Court’s position shifted temporarily in Dr Muhammad Sardar v. Edward Henry Louis [PLD 2009 SC 404], which overruled its prior stance on the retrospective application of the Act. However, this decision was eventually revisited and reversed in Mumtaz Hussain v. Dr Nasir Khan [2010 SCMR 1254], restoring the notion that the Act could apply retroactively.

As the years went by, quite a few significant legal cases emerged that illuminated the practical implications and challenges associated with the Act. Notably, the Act’s retrospective application raised questions about its scope, particularly regarding pending civil litigation over the property and the determination of ownership.

In the case of Shahabuddin vs. The State [PLD 2010 SC 725], the Supreme Court reiterated that the Act was not solely intended for land grabbers but rather aimed to protect the rights of lawful property owners and occupants. The Court emphasized that the Act is a specialized enactment designed to discourage unauthorized and illegal occupation, and its application is not limited to members of the land mafia.

The issue of determining property ownership, a potential obstacle to using the Act effectively, was addressed by the Supreme Court in Mumtaz Hussain v. Dr Nasir Khan [2010 SCMR 1254]. The Court clarified that the trial court’s role was to establish whether parties were prima facie falling within the ambit of the Act’s definition of illegal dispossession, rather than conducting a comprehensive inquiry into property ownership. This approach aimed to ensure that cases could proceed within the Act’s specified time frame without being bogged down by complex property title disputes.

This expansionist interpretation of the Act by the Supreme Court began to take precedence over previous narrower viewpoints. This change was evident in subsequent cases reported from provincial high courts across Pakistan, where a broader understanding of the Act’s applicability was embraced.

In Alia Hussain v. Syed Ziauddin [PLD 2008 Quetta 27], the Quetta High Court ruled in favor of a widow who had left her property in Quetta and was forcibly dispossessed by the accused. Although the accused’s claim to ownership was contested and deemed forged, the Court emphasized the Act’s applicability to cases of dispossession, irrespective of whether the accused were part of a land-grabbing group.

A similar stance was taken in Abdul Rehman v. Muhammad Shaid Qureshi [PLD 2009 Karachi 117], where the Karachi High Court ruled that the Act should be applied to cases of dispossession, even if no clear evidence of land-grabbing by organized groups existed. The Court drew upon the Supreme Court’s precedent in Rahim Tahir’s case to justify its stance, underlining that the Act was intended for all cases of dispossession, except those pending before the enactment of the Act in 2005.

This broader interpretation underscored the shift in judicial perception regarding the Act’s objectives, moving away from an exclusive focus on property grabbers and emphasizing the protection of lawful possession rights. The consistent expansion of the Act’s scope across various high courts indicated a growing consensus on its application and the judiciary’s commitment to addressing the issue of illegal dispossession.

Going further, we come across a series of pivotal cases that underscored the fluidity and sometimes contradictory nature of legal opinions on the Act.

In Anjuman Jilani v. Mst Feroza Jilani [2008 YLR 2095], the Peshawar High Court confronted a dispute within a family over the inheritance of a house. The son had forcibly removed his widowed mother from the disputed property, prompting her to file a criminal complaint under the 2005 Act. The trial court found the son guilty, but the Peshawar High Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that the Act’s applicability extended beyond land grabbers and land mafia to encompass cases of any form of unlawful dispossession.

However, there was a noticeable shift in the Supreme Court’s stance around 2011. In Muhammad Afzal v. Saeedullah Khan [2011 SCMR 1137], the Supreme Court deviated from its previous expansionist approach and declared that the Act did not possess retrospective effect. This meant that cases of dispossession occurring before the enactment of the Act in 2005 would not fall under its purview. This change in perspective contradicted the previous judgment in Mumtaz Hussain v. Dr Nasir Khan [2010 SCMR 1254], highlighting the evolving and sometimes inconsistent judicial interpretations of the Act.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s emphasis on filtering cases involving criminal intent and land mafia associations, as evident in Waqar Ali v. The State [PLD 2011 SC 181], revealed a growing concern about misuse of the Act for cases that were essentially civil disputes or had no criminal intent. This shift aimed to safeguard the Act from being abused for personal gain.

In Habibullah v. Abdul Manan [2012 SCMR 153], the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the Act, affirming its applicability only to those with a history of land grabbing or involvement in illegal activities. This marked a significant departure from previous interpretations that had applied the Act to a broader range of cases.

The uncertainty and divergence of interpretations within the Supreme Court persisted until 2016. In Gulshan Bibi and others vs. Muhammad Sadiq and others [Civil Petition No. 41 of 2008 and Civil Appeal No. 2054 of 20017 & 1208 of 2015], a five-member bench of the Supreme Court clarified that the Act’s definition of illegal dispossession wasn’t confined to a specific category of individuals. This ruling effectively nullified conflicting judgments that had suggested otherwise, restoring a more consistent application of the Act.

This journey through judicial interpretations underscores the dynamic nature of legal thought and the challenges of applying complex legislation like the Illegal Dispossession Act of 2005. As the courts grappled with various aspects of the Act, including its scope, retrospective application, and distinguishing criminal intent, the jurisprudential landscape shifted, ultimately seeking a balance between safeguarding property rights and preventing misuse of the law.

 The case of Shaikh Muhammad Naseem vs. Farida Gul [2016 SCMR 1931] marked a significant step in resolving the judicial debate about whether pending civil litigation could bar the initiation of criminal proceedings under the Act. The Supreme Court clarified that simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings were permissible if an act entailed both civil and criminal liability. This ruling aimed to prevent individuals from unlawfully dispossessing others and then evading criminal consequences by citing pending civil litigation.

However, this clarification also raised concerns about potential abuse of the Act. With the removal of restrictions on its use and the broadening of its scope, any civil dispute related to property rights could be exploited to initiate criminal proceedings. This issue was further exacerbated by the fact that the existence of a civil dispute inherently implies some form of “illegality,” potentially leading to misuse of the Act for personal gain.

Recent reported judgments highlighted judicial unease with the consequences of the Shaikh Muhammad Naseem case. For instance, in Khudai Dad vs. Rahimuddin [2017 MLD 1143], the Baluchistan High Court, in defiance of the binding precedent, ruled that a civil dispute should not be transformed into a criminal case. Similarly, the Lahore High Court’s judgment in Usman Ali vs. Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh and 9 others [2017 P Cr. LJ] and the Karachi High Court’s judgment in Allah Rakho vs. The State [2017 YLR Note 409] ignored binding precedent and highlighted the delicate balance courts struggled to maintain between the protection of property rights and the prevention of the Act’s abuse.

Furthermore, the Act’s reach had its blind spots. It didn’t extend to residents of informal settlements like slums and ‘katchi abadis’. Cases like Muhammad Arshad v. Sultan Muree [2008 MLD 1654] illustrated that individuals in informal settlements faced dispossession without the protection of the Act. Similarly, in Nazir Ahmad v. Asif and 4 others [PLD 2008 Karachi 94], the Karachi High Court held that individuals residing in such settlements couldn’t invoke the Act due to their own status as land grabbers. Additionally, the Act couldn’t be used to remove illegal occupiers from public land, as seen in Naseer Ahmed v. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jhelum [2008 P Cr. L J 1124].

The trajectory of the Illegal Dispossession Act of 2005 serves as a reminder of the complexities that emerge when attempting to address multifaceted social problems through legal frameworks. Although the Act aimed to swiftly address land-grabbing and dispossession, its implementation revealed the potential for misuse, the balance between civil and criminal proceedings, and the exclusion of certain categories of individuals from its protection. The act’s effectiveness remained a challenge within the broader context of Pakistan’s legal system.

The analysis above raises important considerations about the implications and shortcomings of the Illegal Dispossession Act of 2005. The argument that “more law can lead to more crime” resonates with the notion that the Act’s vaguely defined offence  of illegal dispossession encompassed a wide spectrum of civil disputes, potentially escalating them into criminal matters. From the cases discussed it can be said that the Act’s aim to curb property grabbing did not align with the complexities and nuances of the real-world scenarios it was intended to address.

The differing interpretations by Pakistan’s higher judiciary highlighted the divide in the legal community. Some judges favored a narrow definition, restricting the application of the Act to cases directly linked to land grabbers or the land mafia. On the other hand, some believed that this approach would render the Act ineffective, as proving such links could be difficult. The terms “land mafia” and “Qabza groups” don’t always encapsulate the varied forms that land grabbing takes. The act of dispossession itself, sometimes manifested through frivolous civil claims, exploited the weaknesses in the civil justice system rather than constituting a criminal act.

The dilemma of whether a person who acquires a property with knowledge of its disputed status is as culpable as the initial land grabber points to the ethical complexities surrounding property disputes. Furthermore, the Act’s wide interpretation potentially led to miscarriages of justice, with individuals being imprisoned for acts that weren’t inherently criminal. The Act’s intended purpose of protecting property owners could ironically be exploited by the very individuals it aimed to control.

The Act’s application in practice also revealed Pakistan’s reliance on criminal law to address multifaceted social issues, akin to the broader pattern of resorting to criminalization. Misuse of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 for seemingly minor offence s highlights this inclination. In the same vein, the Act’s failure to establish a connection to the land mafia underscores its inability to effectively address the problem it sought to combat.

Our overall assessment of the Act’s performance aligns with the idea that stronger enforcement of existing laws, improvements in land title recording, and an efficient court system would render the Act unnecessary. By delving into these considerations, you emphasize the importance of comprehensive approaches to address the underlying issues.

Finally, the disarray and lack of consistency within the judiciary’s interpretation of the Act raise concerns about its application. The divergence in decisions and the disregard for judicial precedence undermine the rule of law and the rights of citizens. In light of the Supreme Court’s duty to safeguard fundamental rights, this inconsistency warrants reflection on the court’s own decisions concerning the Act.

Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 (Key takeaways from more modern cases after 2018)

• Legal Distinction between Civil and Criminal Matters: The cases highlight the important distinction between civil and criminal matters, especially in the context of illegal dispossession cases. While the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, provides a specific remedy for cases of forcible dispossession, it does not replace civil litigation for matters of property ownership and title disputes.
• Maintainability of Complaints: The cases emphasize the maintainability of complaints under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, even when civil disputes are pending. The Act offers a separate and distinct remedy for cases of illegal possession and dispossession, regardless of the existence of concurrent civil litigation.
• Nature of Evidence: The cases highlight the importance of presenting clear and convincing evidence to prove illegal possession under the Act. Mere agreements or claims of possession may not be sufficient, and proper documentation and proof are essential to establish illegal possession.
• Procedure and Timeline: The Act imposes specific timelines for the resolution of cases. Courts are required to proceed with the trial on a day-to-day basis and decide the case within sixty days. Delays must be adequately justified, and adjournments should be minimized to ensure expeditious resolution.
• Interaction of Laws: The relationship between the Criminal Procedure Code and the Illegal Dispossession Act is explored. While the Act has its own provisions, in the absence of specific regulations, the Criminal Procedure Code applies. This underscores the parallel coexistence of these laws.
• Summoning Witnesses: The cases highlight the principles governing the summoning of witnesses under Section 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code. If a person’s evidence is essential for a just decision, they cannot be prevented from being examined. Courts should consider the relevance of witnesses and their testimony in ensuring a fair trial.
• Factual Controversies: The courts consistently emphasize that cases of illegal dispossession often involve factual controversies that require thorough inquiry and proper evaluation of evidence. Courts should refrain from prematurely dismissing complaints as civil disputes without proper consideration of the facts.
• Remand and Reevaluation: In cases where Trial Courts fail to apply the appropriate legal principles or adequately assess evidence, High Courts may remand cases for reevaluation. This ensures that legal proceedings adhere to the proper standards and principles.

Overall, the cases illustrate the complexities and nuances of cases related to the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and how the law seeks to strike a balance between addressing forcible dispossession and respecting property rights.

Cases about the Premable and Purpose of the ACT

Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 1282 (Supreme Court)

In the case of Haji Muhammad Yunis (Deceased) vs. Mst. Farukh Sultan, the Supreme Court addressed crucial issues pertaining to the Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005). The dispute revolved around a property purchased by overseas Pakistanis, contested by the legal heirs of the vendor on the grounds of fraud and forgery. The High Court decreed the suit for declaration in favor of one of the legal heirs while simultaneously dismissing a complaint filed by the overseas buyers under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court highlighted significant observations: a male legal heir introduced a fictitious attorney, manipulated legal documents, and acquired part of the property through said attorney. Despite wavering stances, the male legal heir eventually supported his sister’s claim under Islamic law. The Court upheld the Revenue Officer’s sanction of the sale mutation and rejected claims of fraud against the vendor. The judgment underscored the need for addressing concurrent findings of lower courts and allowed the appeals, restoring the judgments dismissing the legal heirs’ suit and the complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

Citation Name: 2022 PCrLJN 14 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

The Karachi High Court, in Niaz Mohammad (Deceased) vs. Umer Khayam, deliberated upon the retrospective effect of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court determined that when an incident of illegal dispossession occurred before the Act’s promulgation, the Act would apply against the illegal occupant, provided no case against them was pending in another forum at the time of promulgation. Conversely, if a case against the illegal occupant was already pending before the Act’s promulgation, the Act would not be applicable. This decision clarifies the scope of the Act’s retrospective application in cases of illegal dispossession.

Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJ 1467 (Peshawar High Court)

The Peshawar High Court addressed the interpretation of the term “Qabza group” in the context of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, in the case of Shamsher Ali vs. Jamshid. The Court emphasized that the use of “Qabza group” in the Act’s Preamble does not override the provisions of Section 3. The Court highlighted that co-owners are not immune from the Act’s provisions, and no co-owner can forcibly dispossess another. The judgment underscored that Trial Courts should not neglect their jurisdictional duties and directed the Trial Court to proceed according to law by allowing parties to present evidence. This decision reaffirms the Act’s applicability to co-ownership scenarios and highlights the significance of adhering to due legal processes.

In conclusion, these cases shed light on various aspects of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, including its retrospective effect, interpretation of key terms, and the need to address concurrent findings by lower courts. The decisions establish important precedents and contribute to the evolving jurisprudence surrounding illegal dispossession in Pakistan.

Citation Name: 2019 YLR 2307 (Lahore High Court – Lahore)

The Lahore High Court, in Muhammad Anwar Qureshi vs. State, expounded on the object, purpose, and scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Preamble of the Act explicitly states its objective, which is to safeguard lawful owners and occupants against unlawful or forceful dispossession from their immovable properties. This elucidation underscores the Act’s emphasis on ensuring the protection of property rights and preventing illegal dispossession.

Citation Name: 2018 PCrLJ 1490 (Peshawar High Court)

In the case of Muhammad Ibrahim vs. State, the Peshawar High Court delineated the purpose and object of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Act was enacted to shield legitimate property owners and occupants from illegal and forceful dispossession orchestrated by land grabbers and the land mafia. Its secondary aim was to offer swift remedies to victims and deter unlawful activities. The Court emphasized that the Act’s primary intent was to provide a platform for expeditious investigation and trial of offence s under the Act.

Citation Name: 2018 YLRN 238 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Dr. Bhagwan Das vs. Haji Ghano Khan presented the Karachi High Court with an opportunity to interpret the scope and object of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Act was conceived as a specialized legislation to safeguard lawful owners and occupants of immovable properties against their illegal or forcible dispossession by “property grabbers.” It was designed to curb the activities of such entities. The Preamble of the Act unequivocally manifested its intention to protect the rights of property owners and occupants from the actions of “property grabbers.”

Citation Name: 2017 MLD 1143 (Quetta High Court – Balochistan)

The Quetta High Court, in Khudai Dad vs. Rahimuddin, explored the purpose and scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Act was established as a unique legislative measure to safeguard legitimate owners and occupants of immovable property from unlawful and forceful dispossession perpetrated by property grabbers. The core intent of the legislation was to rein in the activities of land grabbers and reinforce property rights. This case underscored the Act’s intention to combat land grabbing practices.

Citation Name: 2016 PCrLJ 366 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Gul Muhammad vs. State led the Karachi High Court to elucidate the purpose behind enacting the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Act was promulgated to safeguard lawful owners and occupants of immovable properties from illegal and forcible dispossession orchestrated by land grabbers. Additionally, the Act aimed to deter unauthorized and illegal occupants. The Court highlighted the Act’s underlying wisdom of upholding the rule of law, restricting its invocation to cases where aggrieved persons possessed valid title and lawful possession over the property. The Act’s spirit intended to curb professionals and land mafias with a firm hand.

Citation Name: 2016 PCrLJ 1877 (Quetta High Court – Balochistan)

Muhammad Aalam vs. Mehmood Khan provided the Quetta High Court an opportunity to elaborate on the purpose and scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Act was enacted to safeguard lawful owners and occupants of immovable properties from illegal and forcible dispossession by land grabbers. The Act, as a specialized law, empowered courts to conduct special investigations within stipulated timeframes. Courts were required to determine whether a prima facie case existed for proceeding under Section 5(2) of the Act. The Court underscored that the Act targets professional land grabbers and members of land mafia, excluding individuals in lawful occupation.

Citation Name: 2016 MLD 1238 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In Muhammad Qasim vs. Station House Officer, Police Station Khudabad, District Dadu, the Karachi High Court addressed the limited scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Act’s scope primarily extended to cases of forcible dispossession orchestrated by land mafia or habitual land grabbers.

Citation Name: 2016 PCrLJ 929 (Lahore High Court – Lahore)

Sajawal Khan vs. Amir Sultan brought the Lahore High Court to examine the scope and applicability of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. While the Act’s scope was originally limited to a specific class of persons, such as property grabbers, qabza groups, or land mafia, it was found to be misused by various individuals who lacked the credentials to be labeled as such. This misuse diluted the Act’s intent and objectives. The Court stressed that the Act was designed to curb the activities of property grabbers, as indicated in its preamble. The Court referred to legislative history and parliamentary debates to comprehend the spirit of the Act and its intention to counter land grabbing activities.

Citation Name: 2016 YLR 970 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Peer Jehanzeb Shah vs. Sadaqat Ali, the Karachi High Court emphasized that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was introduced to combat the activities of Qabza groups, property grabbers, and land mafia. The Act was specifically designed to counter such entities engaged in illegal dispossession and land grabbing.

Citation Name: 2016 PCrLJ 1877 (Quetta High Court – Balochistan)

Muhammad Aalam vs. Mehmood Khan brought the Quetta High Court to address the interplay between the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and the Balochistan Tenancy Ordinance, 1978. The Court noted that the dispute between the parties did not fall within the purview of the Illegal Dispossession Act. Instead, it belonged to the ambit of the Balochistan Tenancy Ordinance, which provided a comprehensive procedure for ejectment of tenants. The proceedings initiated under the Illegal Dispossession Act were declared coram non judice, and the proceedings were quashed.

Citation Name: 2016 PCrLJ 1777 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

The case of Jamia Darul Uloom Islamia vs. Ilyas led the Karachi High Court to reiterate that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was enacted to discourage land grabbers and protect the rights of lawful property owners and occupants.

Citation Name: 2015 YLR 2512 (Peshawar High Court)

Alamgir Khan vs. Ghulam Rasul highlighted the prerequisites for invoking the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The person dispossessed must be the owner or occupier of the property, and the dispossession must be forceful, illegal, and carried out by a land grabber.

Citation Name: 2014 YLR 2176 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Dr. Baber Yaqoob Sheikh vs. Haris Hafeez clarified the scope and applicability of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Act was designed as a special law applicable only in cases where the accused lacked title to the property, engaged in forceful possession, and were part of a group of land grabbers. The Act’s provisions were applicable solely to land grabbers. The Act’s mechanism allowed for direct cognizance by the Sessions Court on a complaint, bypassing the need to follow the procedure under Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Citation Name: 2014 PCrLJ 1150 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Feroze Golawala vs. Viraf Daroga examined the scope and nature of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Act was found to be protective rather than remedial. It was enacted prospectively to discourage land grabbers and safeguard the rights of property owners and lawful occupants. The Court underscored that complaints under the Act could be entertained by the Court of Session only if there was material showing involvement of the accused in previous activities related to illegal dispossession or a calculated effort to forcefully seize property. The Act aimed to protect lawful possession, allowing recourse to various remedies, including civil suits and the special investigation empowered by the Act.

Citation Name: 2013 PLD 6 (Quetta High Court – Balochistan)

In Ishaque vs. Rasheed, the Quetta High Court clarified that dispossession occurring before the enforcement of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, did not entitle the complainant to utilize the Act’s provisions.

Citation Name: 2013 MLD 1245 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Muhammad Alim vs. Muhammad Younis dealt with the retrospective effect of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court observed that the Act was not retrospective and did not apply to offence s committed before its promulgation. The complainant’s awareness of the dispossession in 2011 did not alter this fact.

Citation Name: 2013 MLD 778 (Lahore High Court – Lahore)

Dr. Mukhtiar Hussain vs. Muhammad Aslam emphasized that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was specially designed to safeguard lawful owners and occupants of immovable property from illegal dispossession by property grabbers.

Citation Name: 2013 MLD 1564 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Amroze Khan vs. Motaser Khan clarified the Act’s scope. The Court stressed that the Act targeted property grabbers and land mafia, excluding cases involving ordinary individuals, co-owners, co-sharers, landlords, tenants, inheritance claims, and disputes over possession based on title documents.

Citation Name: 2013 YLR 1001 (Peshawar High Court)

Nawabzada Muhammad Usman Khan vs. Nawabzada Muhammad Fateh Khan reiterated that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, applied only to immovable property that had allegedly been acquired by property grabbers, Qabza groups, or land mafia.

Citation Name: 2013 MLD 1444 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Muhammad Aslam vs. Imamuddin Ahmed established that the Trial Court under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, lacked jurisdiction to determine the legal character and partition of disputed land. Such matters fell under the jurisdiction of civil courts and revenue fora.

Citation Name: 2013 PLD 121 (Islamabad)

Zafar Mehmood Khokhar vs. Dr. Muhammad Afzal highlighted the comprehensive scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Act aimed to protect the rights of property owners and lawful occupants against unauthorized and illegal occupants. It covered all cases of illegal occupants without distinction.

Citation Name: 2012 SCMR 229 (Supreme Court)

Mst. Inayatan Khatoon vs. Muhammad Ramzan reiterated that the Act’s purpose was to discourage land grabbers and protect property rights. It applied to all cases of illegal occupants, excluding those already addressed through other legal means.

Citation Name: 2012 PCrLJ 581 (Lahore High Court – Lahore)

Mst. Neelam Parveen vs. State emphasized that the Act targeted intruders like property grabbers or “Qabza Groups.” It did not apply to individuals without credentials as property grabbers or land mafia.

Citation Name: 2012 PLD 399 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Jam Suhnal vs. Muhammad Aqil clarified that the Act’s scope extended beyond land grabbers and Qabza groups. The Act covered all types of dispossessions using terms like “dispossess,” “grab,” “control,” or “occupy.”

Citation Name: 2012 MLD 1262 (Peshawar High Court)

Arifullah Khan vs. Hukam Zad Khan addressed the intent behind the enactment of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Act aimed to curb the activities of property grabbers and land mafia. To invoke the Act, sufficient evidence had to demonstrate an accused’s affiliation with a Qabza group, land mafia, or their credentials as a property grabber.

Citation Name: 2012 SCMR 1533 (Supreme Court)

Habibullah vs. Abdul Manan reiterated that the Act was applicable only to accused persons with credentials or antecedents of Qabza groups involved in illegal activities as land grabbers or land mafia.

Citation Name: 2012 YLR 2004 (Peshawar High Court)

Shahzada Khan vs. Badar Islam clarified that disputes between co-sharers of property were not within the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Act provided remedies against land grabbers, and involving co-sharers in criminal complaints would contradict its purpose.

Citation Name: 2012 YLR 2004 (Peshawar High Court)

The same case Shahzada Khan vs. Badar Islam reiterated that when property remains jointly owned, co-sharers are considered owners of every inch, unless legally partitioned. Filing criminal complaints against co-sharers contradicts the intent of the Act designed to combat land grabbers.

Citation Name: 2012 PLD 399 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Jam Suhnal vs. Muhammad Aqil underscored that the purpose of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was to protect the rights of lawful owners and occupants. Mere filing of a civil suit does not necessarily stay criminal proceedings under the Act if it is clear that criminal liability depends on the civil litigation outcome.

Citation Name: 2011 SCMR 1137 (Supreme Court)

Muhammad Fazal vs. Saeedullah Khan established that the penal provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, cannot be applied retrospectively due to constitutional protection against retrospective punishment. The Act could not apply to dispossession cases that occurred before its introduction.

Citation Name: 2011 YLR 647 (Lahore High Court – Lahore)

Ch. Muhammad Aslam vs. Sirdar Ahmad Nawaz Sukhera reiterated that the Act targeted property grabbers or land mafia, not those without credentials or antecedents as such. The Act’s contents and objectives only applied to those directly associated with such activities.

Citation Name: 2010 MLD 503 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Mrs. Mehmooda Aftab vs. Marghoob Hussain highlighted that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, allowed individuals illegally dispossessed from property to seek remedies under the Act while retaining the option of pursuing remedies available under other laws simultaneously.

Citation Name: 2009 PCrLJ 1186 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Sattan Kumar vs. Muhammad Yousif highlighted that the primary purpose of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was to protect the lawful possession of property owners against unlawful dispossession by groups like the ‘Qabza group’ or ‘Land mafia.’ The preamble of the Act indicated that while the possessor’s capacity might not be that of an owner, the possession itself had to be lawful and recognized under the law for the Act’s provisions to apply.

Citation Name: 2009 PLD 117 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Abdul Rehman vs. Muhammad Shahid Qureshi clarified that the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, apply to all cases of dispossession except those cases that were pending before any other forum at the time of the Act’s promulgation.

Citation Name: 2009 PLD 350 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Abdul Hafeez vs. Additional District Judge-VII, South Karachi emphasized that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, provides a special remedy to aggrieved individuals who have been illegally dispossessed from property. The Act’s punishments, as outlined in subsection (2) of Section 3, seem to be in addition to penalties under other laws. Complainants can utilize remedies under both the Act and other laws without a bar on either option.

Citation Name: 2009 PLD 404 (Supreme Court)

Dr. Muhammad Safdar vs. Edward Henry Louis clarified that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was not intended to have retrospective operation. The Act’s provisions cannot be invoked ex post facto, especially when parties to the dispute have already initiated civil suits regarding the same property prior to the Act’s enforcement. The ruling referenced Rahim Tahir v. Ahmad Jan and 2 others PLD 2007 SC 423 but deemed it inapt in terms of the retrospective application of the Act. The making of a law with retrospective punishment is prohibited by Article 12 of the Constitution.

Citation Name: 2011 PCrLJ 1300 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Nabi Bux vs. State clarified that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is a special law designed to safeguard lawful owners and occupiers of immovable property from illegal or forcible dispossession by property grabbers, including land grabbers, qabza groups, or land mafias. To attract the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, the court must assess whether the property is immovable, whether the person is the owner or has lawful possession, whether the accused unlawfully entered the property with an intention to dispossess, grab, control, or occupy it, and if these actions align with the Act’s definitions on the date of its promulgation. The Act’s Section 3(2) emphasizes that a person proven guilty under the Act won’t escape punishment under other laws.

Citation Name: 2011 YLR 647 (Lahore High Court – Lahore)

Ch. Muhammad Aslam vs. Sirdar Ahmad Nawaz Sukhera reiterated that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, focuses on intruders labeled “property grabbers” or “qabza groups” who forcibly occupy immovable properties. The Act’s contents and objectives apply solely to such individuals and not to those without credentials or antecedents of being property grabbers or belonging to land mafias. The accused’s ownership of the disputed land in this case did not establish belonging to property grabbers or a qabza group, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

Citation Name: 2011 SCMR 1137 (Supreme Court)

Muhammad Fazal vs. Saeedullah Khan clarified that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, cannot have retrospective effect. Penal provisions within the Act could not be applied retroactively, as per Article 12(1) of the Constitution. The ruling referred to Rahim Tahir v. Ahmed Jan and 2 others PLD 2007 SC 423 but overruled it with Dr. Muhammad Safdar v. Edward Henry Louis PLD 2009 SC 404.

Citation Name: 2011 PCrLJ 487 (Lahore High Court – Lahore)

Gulfam Ahmed vs. Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala emphasized that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, addresses disputes between rival parties over the possession of immovable property. The Act is targeted at “Property grabbers” or “Qabza Groups,” focusing on individuals with antecedents of grabbing property. It’s crucial to distinguish between professional land grabbers and individuals accused of a solitary act of illegal dispossession. The Act aims to proceed against professional land grabbers or members of land mafias, rather than those accused of isolated acts of dispossession.

Citation Name: 2010 YLR 593 (Peshawar High Court)

Syed Kamal Shah vs. Muhammad Khateeb highlighted that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, being a penal law, requires strict construction. Section 3(1) of the Act prohibits committing the offence  detailed therein, and complainants seeking its benefits must prove lawful ownership or occupation of the property in question, unlawful entry by the accused, unauthorized entry, and intention to dispossess, grab, control, or occupy the immovable property.

Citation Name: 2010 PLD 394 (Lahore High Court – Lahore)

Sami ul Haq Khilji vs. Ali Raza Rizvi specified that the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, apply only to individuals who took possession without title, used force, bypassed due process of law, and belonged to a land grabber group. It emphasized that a private complaint can only proceed with prima facie material against nominated accused. Converting a civil dispute into a criminal offence  under the Act, especially involving co-owners, is inappropriate and misuse of the Act’s provisions. Civil disputes are best resolved in the civil court after evidence collection.

Citation Name: 2010 PLD 394 (Lahore High Court – Lahore)

Sami ul Haq Khilji vs. Ali Raza Rizvi further clarified that the Act’s applicability is limited to cases involving land grabbers. In this context, a report from the Station House Officer stated that the accused was occupying a portion of the property lawfully with due consideration. When disputes arise between co-owners, the Act is not applicable. This emphasizes that the Act is meant specifically for property grabbers.

Citation Name: 2010 MLD 1920 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Muhammad Ali vs. Abdul Haq emphasized that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, provides an alternate and efficient remedy within a stipulated period to curb land mafias and safeguard lawful owners and occupiers of immovable property from illegal dispossession. The Act empowers the court to conduct a special investigation and decide the case promptly. Section 6 of the Act allows interim property attachment till the final decision. The Act’s procedures are distinct from other civil and criminal remedies available to parties seeking property entitlement and possession.

ations and Applications of Illegal Dispossession Act 2005

Citation Name: 2010 SCMR 1254 (Supreme Court)

Mumtaz Hussain vs. Dr. Nasir Khan highlighted that the scope of Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is clear and wide, covering persons mentioned in the Act’s preamble. The preamble, though important, cannot limit the Act’s application. The Act is relevant to dispossession by any person, including land grabbers, Qabza groups, or land mafias.

Citation Name: 2010 PCrLJ 422 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Shahabuddin vs. State pointed out that while the preamble of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, uses the term “property grabbers,” its weight doesn’t match the explicit provisions of the Act. The preamble’s words do not carry the same legal significance as those used in the Act itself.

Citation Name: 2009 PCrLJ 864 (Lahore High Court – Lahore)

Haji Taj Din vs. Sh. Mujib Ullah underscored that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, provides various remedies under both civil and criminal law, allowing simultaneous proceedings. The Act aims to identify land grabbers, protect owners, and offer swift and effective relief. Multiple forums can proceed simultaneously, and the Act applies broadly to cases of illegal occupation.

Citation Name: 2009 PLD 65 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Maqsood Ahmed Qureshi vs. Muhammad Azam Ali Siddiqui stated that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, applies to all cases of illegal and unauthorized dispossession, except those already pending before other forums at its promulgation.

Citation Name: 2008 PLD 94 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Nazir Ahmed vs. Asif emphasized that land grabbers lack the right to approach the court to protect their rights. The Act aims to safeguard lawful possession against land grabbers and land mafia.

Citation Name: 2008 YLR 2259 (Lahore High Court – Lahore)

Rana Shafique Ahmad vs. Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore highlighted that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, discourages land grabbers, protecting the rights of lawful owners and occupants against unauthorized occupation. The Act does not decide property ownership; such matters are within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court.

Citation Name: 2007 PLD 123 (Lahore High Court – Lahore)

In Yafas vs. State, it was explained that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was enacted to counter the increasing use of force in dispossessions. It aimed to address organized groups forcibly dispossessing property owners. The Act’s provisions specified strict procedures, penalties, and compensations to curb land grabbing activities. The Act targeted property grabbers and land mafia, rather than resolving disputes between contiguous or co-owners.

Citation Name: 2007 PLD 231 (Lahore High Court – Lahore)

In Zahoor Ahmad vs. State, the Court acknowledged issues with the drafting of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and recommended that the Federal Law Ministry address the highlighted aspects in the judgment.

Citation Name: 2007 YLR 2236 (Lahore High Court – Lahore)

Nazir Ahmad Khan vs. Tanveer Ahmad clarified that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was not intended for ordinary cases of dispossession with available remedies in civil or revenue courts. The Act’s application required material demonstrating involvement in previous illegal dispossession activities or an organized effort to forcibly or deceitfully grab property without lawful claim. The Act was designed to target property grabbers.

Citation Name: 2007 PLD 179 (Peshawar High Court)

Jan Pervez vs. Haji Fazal Hussain highlighted that the remedy provided by the Specific Relief Act, 1877, particularly under Section 9, was more appropriate for redressing grievances related to dispossession from immovable property. The court urged a judicious approach to determine whether a complaint fell within the purview of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, or was better suited for resolution under the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The expressions “to grab, to control or to occupy” in the Act demonstrated the intent to curb land grabbing activities. The Act was not meant for ordinary cases of dispossession that could be effectively regulated under existing civil remedies.

Citation Name: 2007 PLD 123 (Lahore High Court – Lahore)

In the case of Yafas vs. State, it was established that for the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 to be applicable, certain points needed to be established. These included proving that the person taking possession had no title, that force was used, that due process of law was not followed, and that the person belonged to the group of land grabbers. In this case, the complainant was a lawful owner, but evidence lacked proof of forceful dispossession, damage, or belonging to a group of land grabbers. Consequently, the Act did not apply, and the accused’s conviction was set aside.

Citation Name: 2007 PCRLJ 1299 (Lahore High Court – Lahore)

Abdul Haq vs. Additional Sessions Judge clarified that a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, cannot be entertained when possession matters are being regulated by a civil or revenue court.

Citation Name: 2007 PLD 423 (Supreme Court)

Rahim Tahir vs. Ahmed Jan discussed the extent and scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Act, not having retrospective effect, might not be applicable to cases of unauthorized occupants already pending before other forums. However, cases of illegal occupants not pending before other forums at the Act’s enforcement date fall within its ambit.

Citation Name: 2007 PLD 179 (Peshawar High Court)

Jan Pervez vs. Haji Fazal Hussain highlighted that the remedy provided by Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, was more appropriate for addressing grievances related to dispossession. It was emphasized that new laws like the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, should not be applied to ordinary cases of dispossession or recovery that could be effectively handled under existing civil remedies.

Citation Name: 2011 PLD 76 (Quetta High Court – Balochistan)

This case clarified that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, would not be applicable to cases of unauthorized occupants pending before other forums on the date of its promulgation. However, if a case of illegal occupancy was not already pending before any other forum at the Act’s enforcement date, it would fall under the Act’s ambit.

Citation Name: 2020 YLR 634 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

This case discussed the term ‘person’ in the context of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. It ruled that any Housing Co-operative Society could file an illegal dispossession complaint as a ‘person’ against those who had illegally dispossessed land or plots owned by the society. The Act’s provisions did not bar a society from initiating proceedings even if other legal actions were underway simultaneously.

Citation Name: 2019 MLD 1840 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

This case involved restoration of possession as interim relief under the Act. The court examined the term ‘occupier’ and concluded that applicants failed to establish themselves as occupiers within the Act’s definition. As a result, their applications for restoration of possession were dismissed.

Citation Name: 2019 MLD 1428 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

This case clarified that individuals who can approach a court under the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, are owners and/or occupiers of the subject property. This helps define who has the standing to seek relief under the Act.

Citation Name: 2016 MLD 2085 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

The court in this case emphasized that in order to attract the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the complainant must establish that they were the lawful owner or occupier of the subject property and that the accused entered or occupied the property without lawful authority, with the intention to dispossess, grab, control, or occupy the property. Without such allegations falling within the ambit of the Act, the complaint would not be valid.

Citation Name: 2016 PCrLJ 1877 (Quetta High Court – Balochistan)

This case highlighted a situation where the dispute did not fall within the purview of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. Instead, it was governed by the Balochistan Tenancy Ordinance, 1978, which provided a distinct procedure for ejectment of tenants. The court held that the proceedings initiated under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, were not applicable in this context.

Citation Name: 2016 PCrLJ 1722 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In this case, the court reiterated the pre-conditions for restoration of possession as an interim relief under the Act. Prima facie evidence of being a lawful owner or occupier was required, along with establishing that the accused had entered or occupied the property without lawful authority with the intention to dispossess, grab, control, or occupy the property. The court also emphasized that an interim relief order for restoration of possession could be passed only when it was prima facie established that the complainant was illegally and forcibly dispossessed, and the accused was in unlawful possession.

Citation Name: 2015 YLR 2512 (Peshawar High Court)

This case established that the term “occupier” under the Act refers to a person who is in lawful possession of a property.

Citation Name: 2015 YLR 2512 (Peshawar High Court)

This case defined the term “owner” under the Act as a person who owned the property at the time of their dispossession otherwise than through due process of law.

Citation Name: 2012 YLR 2452 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In this case, the court pointed out that the trial court must consider the possession of a complainant even if they are a licensee. The court emphasized that the possession status must be taken into account for cases under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

Citation Name: 2012 SCMR 229 (Supreme Court)

This case clarified that the examination of a complainant under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is not mandatory before taking cognizance under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court held that the Act does not limit “owner or occupier” to a single owner or occupier, implying that multiple owners or occupiers can approach the trial court by filing a complaint under the Act.

Citation Name: 2012 PLD 189 (Quetta High Court – Balochistan)

This case dealt with the concept of “lawful possession” and “owner.” Even if a complainant is not the recorded owner of a property, as long as they can prove lawful possession, they can maintain a complaint under the Act. The court emphasized that even possession by the complainant’s watchman could qualify as possession by the complainant, considering the circumstances. The lodging of an FIR or availing a remedy under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, does not act as a bar to availing remedies under other laws.

Citation Name: 2009 PLD 81 (Peshawar High Court)

In this case, the court clarified that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 applies to cases where individuals enter or occupy a property with the intention to dispossess the lawful owner or occupier. The court ruled that the Act was not applicable to a situation where the accused had been inducted into a property by the owner under an oral agreement for rendering domestic services. The court concluded that since the accused were lawful occupiers under an agreement, the complaint filed against them was not maintainable under the Act.

Citation Name: 2008 PLD 94 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

This case emphasized that a person claiming to be the owner of a property must prove their status as lawful. Similarly, a person claiming possession must demonstrate lawful possession over the property. The court stressed the importance of producing documents or evidence to support claims of ownership or lawful possession.

Citation Name: 2008 PLD 27 (Quetta High Court – Balochistan)

The court ruled that for the purpose of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, an owner recorded in the Revenue Record is considered the owner. This implies that ownership as recorded in official records holds weight for the Act’s application.

Application of the Act to Occupants of Kachi Abadi

Citation Name: 2008 PLD 94 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

This case dealt with the restoration of possession for occupants of Kachi Abadi (informal settlements). The petitioner claimed dispossession from a property but failed to produce evidence or documents to establish ownership or lawful occupation. The court upheld that the petitioner’s claim could not be accepted in the absence of such proof. The revision was dismissed, emphasizing the need for proper evidence of ownership or lawful occupation, particularly in Kachi Abadi scenarios.

Citation Name: 2007 PLD 72 (Quetta High Court – Balochistan)

This case discussed the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge to entertain a direct complaint under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court emphasized that questions regarding dispossession and property title are matters of fact that require proper evidence and the opportunity for parties to be heard. In this case, the District and Sessions Judge had not allowed the parties to present evidence or be heard, leading to an improper decision. The High Court set aside the lower court’s order and directed a proper consideration of the matter in accordance with relevant legal provisions.

Citation Name: 2007 PCRLJ 1297 (Peshawar High Court)

Here, the court differentiated between criminal and civil disputes related to dispossession. The petitioner claimed interference with possession over disputed property but later reached a compromise with the respondents. The court observed that the complaint did not attract the penal provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, as the dispute was of a civil nature and the petitioner had not been actually dispossessed.

Citation Name: 2006 MLD 1942 (Lahore High Court – Lahore)

This case underscored the importance of evidence and lawful possession. The petitioner alleged illegal encroachment on a path. The court found that the petitioner did not possess the path as its owner, but rather had used it for access. Revenue records showed the path was recorded as Shamlat Deh (common land). As the petitioner was not the owner and was not in lawful possession, the case did not warrant interference under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 187 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

This case emphasizes the distinction between “dispossession” and “illegal dispossession” under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court clarifies that every case of dispossession does not necessarily fall under the Act, as only cases of “illegal dispossession” are covered. If dispossession occurs under a legal process or lawful order, it qualifies as lawful dispossession and is not subject to penal action. The court stresses the importance of using the Act for cases of wrongful possession that require removal through available lawful remedies.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 187 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

The court delves into the expression “without having any lawful authority” in Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. It highlights that this phrase is crucial and emphasizes that the Act aims to prevent “illegal possession.” Thus, the Act applies only to those who enter or occupy property without lawful authority. Possessing lawful authority to enter a property serves as a defense against complaints under this section.

Citation Name: 2023 YLRN 2 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

This case clarifies that complaints under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, can be maintained even when civil litigation is ongoing. Both criminal and civil proceedings are independent, and a complaint cannot be summarily dismissed due to a civil dispute. The court emphasizes that a person can be tried under both types of proceedings.

Citation Name: 2023 YLRN 2 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

The court reviews an appeal against acquittal regarding illegal dispossession. In this case, the accused were alleged to have forcibly occupied a certain area. The court observes that there was no direct evidence of dispossessing the complainant, leading the Trial Court to acquit the accused based on the benefit of the doubt. The Trial Court also noted the uncertainty around the complainant’s ownership, suggesting that the matter should be pursued through proper legal forums. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Citation Name: 2023 YLRN 2 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

The court clarifies the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, under Section 3. It highlights that the Act’s function is limited to addressing illegal dispossession, and the court’s role is restricted to determining such dispossession’s illegality. The court states that the court’s jurisdiction does not extend to deciding the authenticity of documents or adjudicating property titles.

Citation Name: 2023 YLRN 9 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

This case reiterates that filing or proceeding with a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is not barred during the pendency of civil litigation. The Act’s criminal proceedings can continue independently of civil disputes.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 502 (Islamabad)

The court emphasizes that a person can be tried under both civil and criminal proceedings when an act entails civil liability under civil law and criminal penalty under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. Pending civil litigation does not prevent criminal proceedings under the Act from being initiated if the described offence  has been committed.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 502 (Islamabad)

In this case, the court addresses the dismissal of a complaint at an initial stage. The complainant had reported forceful dispossession with supporting evidence. The court emphasizes that dismissals should not occur in a cursory manner when incriminating material is present. The court allowed the constitutional petition and directed the Trial Court to decide the complaint following the law.

Citation Name: 2023 YLRN 7 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

The court examines an appeal against acquittal regarding allegations of illegal dispossession. The court highlights that reasonable doubt can be created when enmity exists, and evidence lacks independent corroboration. In this case, the appeal against acquittal was dismissed due to doubts about the complainant’s story and evidence.

Citation Name: 2023 YLRN 9 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

The case involves a challenge to an order passed by the Trial Court allowing the complainant’s application under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The SHO’s report and magistrate’s inquiry supported the complainant’s claim as the lawful owner of the property. The accused claimed possession based on a tenancy agreement with an alleged landlord. However, without evidence of title or ownership of the landlord, the High Court found no illegality, infirmity, or material irregularity in the order, dismissing the revision application.

Citation Name: 2023 YLRN 7 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

This case involves an appeal against acquittal where the accused allegedly forcibly dispossessed the complainant from a rented property. The court emphasizes the importance of proving legal possession and tenancy. The complainant’s failure to produce evidence of possession and tenancy raised doubts. Enmity between the parties and lack of independent corroboration further weakened the complainant’s evidence. The appeal was dismissed due to reasonable doubt and lack of credible evidence.

Citation Name: 2023 YLRN 9 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

The court clarifies that the pendency of civil litigation does not bar filing or proceeding with a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Act’s criminal proceedings can continue independently of civil disputes.

Citation Name: 2022 YLRN 163 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In this case, the complainant challenged the acquittal of the accused. The SHO’s investigation report did not support the complainant’s claim of forceful dispossession. Witnesses whose statements were recorded were not produced, suggesting that their testimony might not support the prosecution’s case. The complainant failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against acquittal.

Citation Name: 2022 YLR 2252 (Peshawar High Court)

The appeal concerns an order where the Trial Court acquitted the accused but ordered the restoration of possession to the complainant. The court explains that possession restoration under Section 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, requires conviction. The Trial Court’s findings were not in line with the Act’s provisions, and the case was remanded for an appropriate judgment.

Citation Name: 2022 MLD 630 (Quetta High Court – Balochistan)

The court emphasizes that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is meant to curb property grabbers’ activities. It applies to dispossession by land mafias and not ordinary individuals involved in disputes such as co-owners, landlords, tenants, or inheritance cases. Disputes of a civil nature fall outside the Act’s scope.

Citation Name: 2022 MLD 630 (Quetta High Court – Balochistan)

The appeal involves a case where the accused allegedly illegally dispossessed the complainant from his land. The court emphasizes that the accused did not belong to the category of property grabbers or land mafias, and the dispute was of a civil nature. The appeal against conviction was accepted based on these considerations.

Citation Name: 2022 PCrLJN 14 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

This case deals with the illegal dispossession of property. The complainant claimed ownership based on documents, while the respondent had been in possession for a significant period. The court dismissed the complaint since the complainant failed to show illegal or forcible dispossession. The respondent’s possession since 2002, supported by utility bills and a neighbor’s statement, was considered. The court emphasized that the complainant didn’t allege specific illegal dispossession and ruled the application meritless.

Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 1282 (Supreme Court)

In this case, a suit for declaration against sale mutation and a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act were both dismissed by the High Court. The male legal heir introduced a fictitious attorney, manipulated statements, and alienated part of the property. The Trial and Appellate Courts found this behavior suspicious. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court couldn’t reverse findings without addressing the reasoning of lower courts. The appeals were allowed, restoring the judgments of trial and appellate courts.

Citation Name: 2022 YLRN 65 (Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Here, the appellant claimed illegal dispossession from agricultural land. The dispute was over government land, with the respondents invoking a government scheme. The appellant failed to provide adequate evidence. A civil suit was also ongoing. The Trial Court acquitted the respondents due to reasonable doubt. The High Court found no illegality in the judgment and dismissed the appeal against acquittal.

 Qaiser Jabbar v. Syed Mati Ullah Shah (Islamabad) 2016  PCrLJ  1103

In the case of Qaiser Jabbar v. Syed Mati Ullah Shah, the appellant, Qaiser Jabbar, filed a criminal complaint against the respondents, alleging their involvement in illegal dispossession. The complainant’s complaint was dismissed, prompting him to approach the High Court. The central issue revolved around the maintainability of the complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, considering the pendency of civil litigation between the parties. The court clarified that the Act is intended to address cases of land grabbers and illegal dispossession, not to settle civil disputes. As civil litigation was ongoing, the court found that the complainant failed to provide legal and cogent evidence to prove his case against the respondents. The High Court declined to interfere with the Trial Court’s order, and the revision application was consequently dismissed.

Muhammad Rafique v. Tasadaq Hussain (Islamabad): 2022  MLD  1232     ISLAMABAD

The case of Muhammad Rafique v. Tasadaq Hussain involved the interpretation of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court emphasized that the Act’s purpose is to address instances of illegal dispossession against the lawful owner or occupier. To constitute an offence  under the Act, the complainant must prove lawful possession at the time of dispossession, with specific reference to time and date. The court clarified that the Act’s provisions do not parallel civil suits. Under Section 5 of the Act, the court is required to proceed with the trial on a day-to-day basis and decide the case within sixty days. Delays are to be avoided, and reasons for any delay must be recorded. The judgment emphasized that the Act’s proceedings are summary in nature and are meant to be concluded within a specific timeframe.

 Habib Ullah v. Chaman (Peshawar High Court) 2022  PCrLJ  1730     PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

In the case of Habib Ullah v. Chaman, the petitioners, who were accused persons, challenged an order by the Trial Court that restored possession to the respondents. The dispute concerned the legality of the restoration of possession under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court clarified that the pendency of civil litigation does not affect criminal proceedings under the Act. The court stated that for an offence  under Section 3 of the Act, the complainant must disclose an unlawful act and criminal intent. In this case, the respondents’ illegal dispossession was supported by both oral and documentary evidence. The court maintained the order of restoration of possession and dismissed the petitioners’ request to quash it.

 Sana Ullah Khan v. State (Lahore High Court – Lahore) 2022  PCrLJ  1828

In the case of Sana Ullah Khan v. State, the appellant challenged his acquittal through an appeal against acquittal. The appellant questioned the powers of revision in the context of challenging an acquittal. The court clarified that while revisional jurisdiction can be invoked for challenges against dismissal orders and interlocutory orders, it does not extend to challenging acquittals. Acquittals can be challenged through a constitutional petition if no other efficacious remedy is available.

 Malik Muhammad Ejaz Channar v. State (Lahore High Court – Lahore) 2022  PLD  427

The case of Malik Muhammad Ejaz Channar v. State dealt with the withdrawal of a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court examined the applicability of Section 248 of the Criminal Procedure Code in such cases. The court emphasized that the Act’s mode of inquiry and investigation differs from the standard criminal procedure, indicating that specific provisions of the Act should be followed. As there was no specific prohibition against the application of Section 248 in cases under the Act, the court concluded that such provisions were available to the court trying such complaints.

 Malik Muhammad Ejaz Channar v. State (Lahore High Court – Lahore)   2022  PLD  427

In a different context, the case of Malik Muhammad Ejaz Channar v. State explored the compounding of offence s under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court clarified that offence s under Section 3 of the Act are not compoundable, meaning they cannot be settled through compromise between parties.

 Muhammad Yar v. Muhammad Umer (Quetta High Court – Balochistan) 2022  YLRN  100

In the case of Muhammad Yar v. Muhammad Umer, the appellant, Muhammad Yar, filed a complaint against the respondents, alleging their illegal possession of a property. The matter was sub judice before the Board of Revenue at the time of filing the complaint. The Board of Revenue had dismissed the complainant’s petition, stating that he was not entitled to ownership of the property. The appellant failed to mention the mutation number and boundaries of the property in his complaint. The Station House Officer’s report indicated that the property was in the possession of the respondents. Given the pending civil dispute between the parties, coupled with the lack of evidence of forceful dispossession, the court dismissed the appeal against acquittal.

 Eid Muhammad v. State (Quetta High Court – Balochistan) 2022  MLD  630

The case of Eid Muhammad v. State examined the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court clarified that the Act’s main purpose is to address property grabbers or land mafia activities. It emphasized that the Act does not apply to cases involving ordinary persons who are not part of the land grabber category. Such cases include disputes between co-owners, landlords and tenants, inheritance-based possession claims, and disputes over property ownership based on title documents. The judgment highlighted the Act’s applicability to situations involving land grabbers and excluded civil disputes between non-land-grabber parties.

Eid Muhammad v. State (Quetta High Court – Balochistan) 2022  MLD  630

In the same case of Eid Muhammad v. State, the court addressed a specific instance. The accused, Eid Muhammad, was alleged to have illegally dispossessed the complainant from his land. However, the complaint did not assert that the accused was part of the qabza mafia or a land grabber. Additionally, the complaint did not clarify why the complainant remained silent for four years after the dispossession. The mode of dispossession was also missing from the complaint. The court noted that the accused’s long-standing possession indicated that he did not belong to the category of property grabbers. The court concluded that the matter pertained to a civil dispute, rather than a case under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appeal against conviction was accepted, and the accused was acquitted.

 Qaiser Jabbar v. Syed Mati Ullah Shah (Islamabad) 2022  YLR  1696

The case of Qaiser Jabbar v. Syed Mati Ullah Shah revisited the issue of criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appellant, Qaiser Jabbar, filed a criminal complaint against the respondents, claiming their involvement in illegal dispossession. However, the High Court emphasized that the Act is meant to address cases involving land grabbers, not to settle civil disputes. As civil litigation was pending between the parties and the complainant failed to provide substantial evidence to support his claim, the High Court dismissed the appeal against acquittal.

 Burhan v. Paru (Karachi High Court – Sindh) 2021  YLRN  147

In the case of Burhan v. Paru, the applicants challenged the dismissal of their application under Sections 3 & 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The impugned judgment was issued on 28th April 2011, while the criminal revision application was filed on 21st June 2011. The High Court noted that the applicants had not diligently pursued their revision application. The Trial Court’s judgment had comprehensively discussed and considered all aspects of the case. Finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, the High Court declined to interfere. The revision application was subsequently dismissed.

Syed Abdul Wahab v. VIIIth Additional District and Session Judge, Karachi (Karachi High Court – Sindh) 2021  MLD  395

The case of Syed Abdul Wahab v. VIIIth Additional District and Session Judge, Karachi, clarified the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Act was enacted to address the activities of “qabza groups/property grabbers and land mafia.” Its purpose was to curb such activities and prevent illegal dispossession from property.

Syed Abdul Wahab v. VIIIth Additional District and Session Judge, Karachi (Karachi High Court – Sindh) 2021  MLD  395

In the same case of Syed Abdul Wahab v. VIIIth Additional District and Session Judge, Karachi, the appellant contested the dismissal of his complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appellant claimed ownership based on a general power of attorney issued by the actual lessee. However, the power of attorney did not explicitly indicate that possession was granted to the appellant. The appellant also asserted that an agreement to sell had been executed in his favor, but its complete copy was not presented. The court ruled that an agreement to sell did not confer ownership rights. Insufficient evidence was available to prove that the appellant was in possession and had been subsequently dispossessed. Given that the matter was a civil dispute already under the consideration of the High Court, the appeal was dismissed.

 Mohammad Haneef v. Barkat (Karachi High Court – Sindh)2021  YLR  732

The case of Mohammad Haneef v. Barkat revolved around an appeal against acquittal. The complainant alleged that the accused had illegally occupied one acre of his land approximately three months before filing the complaint. However, neither the complaint filed under Section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, nor the evidence provided by the complainant and his witnesses specified the date, time, descriptions, or boundaries of the subject land. These details were essential for identifying the subject area. The complainant failed to produce documents establishing his ownership of the land and his prior possession. The appeal against conviction was dismissed due to the lack of conclusive evidence.

Zainullah v. Mst. Taraja Begum (Peshawar High Court)2021  PCrLJN  18

In the case of Zainullah v. Mst. Taraja Begum, the appellants challenged their conviction under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The complainant’s claim was that she was initially handed possession of the property through a warrant of possession, but the appellants subsequently dispossessed her after three days. However, the Girdawar Circle reported that no warrant of possession had been issued by the Revenue Officer on the relevant date. Contradictions were found in the statements of prosecution witnesses, weakening the complainant’s case of possession. The High Court observed that the complainant failed to establish her possession through convincing, concrete, and direct evidence. Due to the lack of a solid case for recovery of possession, the constitutional petition was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside.

 Shahal v. Station House Officer, Police Station Dubar, Sukkur (Karachi High Court – Sindh) 2021  YLRN  84

In the case of Shahal v. Station House Officer, Police Station Dubar, Sukkur, the complainant’s case against the accused persons was dismissed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court held that since the parties were already engaged in litigation before a competent forum and no incident of illegal dispossession had occurred, the dispute could not be resolved through criminal proceedings. The High Court upheld this decision, noting that the complainant’s possession was not proven, and that a person seeking remedy under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, could only do so if they were dispossessed from the property. In this case, the complainant was not in possession and was unaware of any dispossession. As a result, the complainant’s resort to criminal law was deemed inappropriate, and the revision petition was dismissed.

 Muhammad Riaz v. Muhammad Sharif (Lahore High Court – Lahore) 2021  YLRN  125

The case of Muhammad Riaz v. Muhammad Sharif concerned joint and un-partitioned property. The accused were convicted for allegedly dispossessing the complainants from their property, which was joint and not partitioned by the court. The court ruled that neither the accused could be convicted nor the shares of the complainants separated from the co-owners under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The judgment was set aside due to misreading and non-reading of evidence. The appeal was accepted.

Khadim Ali v. Hakim Ali (Karachi High Court – Sindh) 2021  YLR  1556

In the case of Khadim Ali v. Hakim Ali, the appellant appealed against an acquittal. The complainant alleged that the accused, along with ten unidentified persons, had illegally dispossessed him at gunpoint from his agricultural land. However, the complainant’s claim lacked substantial evidence. Descriptions and boundaries of the areas allegedly purchased by the complainant were not provided, and the identity of the subject land remained unclear. The court determined that no case attracting the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, had been made. The matter was deemed a civil dispute, and the appeal against acquittal was dismissed.

These summaries provide an overview of the mentioned cases. If you need further analysis or assistance, please feel free to ask.

Anant Kumar Parshotam v. Members of the Managing Committee, Swami Narayan Temple Trust (Karachi High Court – Sindh)2021  PCrLJN  38

In the case of Anant Kumar Parshotam v. Members of the Managing Committee, Swami Narayan Temple Trust, the appellant challenged the Trial Court’s refusal to take cognizance of the offence of illegal dispossession. The appellant argued that the order dismissing the complaint should be appealable under Section 8-A of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. However, the High Court clarified that under Section 8-A, appealable orders were limited to those made under subsections (2) and (3) of Section 3, and subsection (1) of Section 8. Since the order in question dismissed the complaint, it did not fall under these appealable categories.

 Khalid v. State (Karachi High Court – Sindh)2021  PCrLJN  43

In the case of Khalid v. State, the accused appealed against their conviction under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The accused had already spent a significant time in jail, and possession of the plot in question had been handed over to the complainant. Considering the circumstances and the accused’s young age, the High Court altered the sentences into imprisonment that the accused had already undergone. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.

 Anant Kumar Parshotam v. Members of the Managing Committee, Swami Narayan Temple Trust (Karachi High Court – Sindh) 2021  PCrLJN  38

The same case as previously mentioned involved considerations regarding the scope of constituting an offence under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court emphasized that in order to establish an offence under this Act, the complaint must demonstrate both actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty intent). If the complaint or accompanying documents fail to disclose the facts constituting an offence under Section 3 of the Act, the court has the authority to dismiss the complaint outright.

Usman Saleem v. Additional District and Sessions Judge III, Karachi East (Karachi High Court – Sindh)2021  PCrLJN  66

In the case of Usman Saleem v. Additional District and Sessions Judge III, Karachi East, the complainant appealed against the dismissal of his application under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The complaint was filed through an attorney, but the court pointed out that criminal proceedings only recognized witnesses or complainants who could provide firsthand information. An attorney, not having direct personal knowledge, was not qualified to file a criminal complaint. The court further explained that the controversy between the parties was a dispute of a civil nature that should be addressed in a civil court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to various legal and procedural deficiencies.

 Zainullah v. Mst. Taraja Begum (Peshawar High Court)2021  PCrLJN  18

In the case of Zainullah v. Mst. Taraja Begum, the petitioners appealed against their conviction under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The complainant alleged that she was handed possession of a property through a warrant of possession but was subsequently dispossessed by the petitioners. The court found that the complainant failed to provide concrete and direct evidence to prove her possession, and there were contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. As a result, the court allowed the constitutional petition and set aside the impugned judgment.

 Muhammad Ibrahim v. Mera Jan (Quetta High Court – Balochistan) 2021  PCrLJ  1476

In the case of Muhammad Ibrahim v. Mera Jan, the petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, claiming that the respondent had illegally occupied his house. However, the report of the Station House Officer revealed that the house was in possession of another person who had rented it out to someone else. The Trial Court dismissed the complaint, stating that it pertained to a civil dispute. The court upheld the dismissal, noting that the petitioner failed to make relevant parties parties to the complaint and that the matter was better suited for resolution through inquiry and evidence in a civil court.

Burhan v. Paru (Karachi High Court – Sindh) 2021  YLRN  147

In the case of Burhan v. Paru, applicants appealed against the dismissal of their application under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The applicants challenged the Trial Court’s judgment, which was passed before the filing of the criminal revision application. The High Court found that the impugned judgment was comprehensive and legally sound, covering all aspects of the case. Therefore, the High Court deemed the judgment to be appropriate in terms of law and facts, requiring no intervention.

 Mst. Farah Deeba v. Said Muhammad alias Toti (Peshawar High Court)2021  MLD  580

In the case of Mst. Farah Deeba v. Said Muhammad alias Toti, the appellant appealed against the acquittal of the respondent under Sections 3 and 8A of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appellant argued that an appeal against an order of dismissal of complaint was maintainable under the Act. The High Court held that an appeal against an order of acquittal, dismissal of complaint, or conviction was indeed maintainable under Section 8A of the Act. The court clarified that a dismissal of a complaint carried similar consequences to an appealable order, as defined in the Act.

 Muhammad Riaz v. Muhammad Sharif (Lahore High Court – Lahore) 2021  YLRN  125

In the case of Muhammad Riaz v. Muhammad Sharif, the appellant appealed against the conviction of accused persons for illegal dispossession. The court found that the suit property was joint between the parties and had not been partitioned. As a result, the accused persons could not have been convicted for illegal dispossession, and the appeal was accepted.

 Muhammad Bux Chandio v. Zulfiqar Ali (Karachi High Court – Sindh) 2021  MLD  284

In the case of Muhammad Bux Chandio v. Zulfiqar Ali, the applicant challenged the dismissal of his complaint, which was based on the contention that the subject property was handed over to respondents through a compromise agreement. The court found that the Trial Court should have delved into the facts more deeply to ascertain the truth instead of relying solely on reports. The case was remanded to the Trial Court for reconsideration.

 Munib v. Ali Mardan (Karachi High Court – Sindh)2020  YLR  457

In the case of Munib v. Ali Mardan, the petitioner filed a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which was dismissed. However, during the pendency of a criminal miscellaneous application against the dismissal, the complainant passed away. The court held that a fresh complaint could be filed by the legal heirs of the deceased under the Act, based on new facts and circumstances.

Barkat Ali v. Mst. Naseem (Karachi High Court – Sindh) 2020  YLRN  131

In the case of Barkat Ali v. Mst. Naseem, the appellant party filed a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, against the respondent party for illegal possession and harassment. The appellant party had previously filed a civil suit which was decreed but not challenged, and another civil suit which was dismissed. The Trial Court directed the accused party to hand over possession of the disputed plot to the complainant party. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, stating that the complaint under the Act is not intended to equate to a civil proceeding or to frustrate a civil suit.

Saleem Ran v. 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, “Malir”, Karachi (Karachi High Court – Sindh) 2020  YLR  634

In the case of Saleem Ran v. 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, “Malir”, Karachi, the applicant party filed a complaint under the Act against a Housing Co-operative Society for encroachment over property. The court found that the documents produced by the applicants were fake, and the Housing Society had established good title over the land. The court declined to interfere with the order of possession issued by the Trial Court, citing laches, and dismissed the revision.

 Syed Muhammad Ahsan v. Munawar Ali Naqvi (Karachi High Court – Sindh)2020  YLR  1

In the case of Syed Muhammad Ahsan v. Munawar Ali Naqvi, the appellant challenged the acquittal of the accused under the Act. The court found that even abandoned property is supposed to be in constructive possession of its lawful owner. The accused could not contravene Section 3(1) of the Act, even if there was a defect in the status of the owner to hold, occupy, and control the property.

Shahrukh Akbar v. Mst. Farah Naz (Karachi High Court – Sindh)2020  MLD  170

In the case of Shahrukh Akbar v. Mst. Farah Naz, the appellant lodged a First Information Report (FIR) after a delay of more than a month. The court noted the delay and the lack of a satisfactory explanation for it, suggesting that the question of false implication could not be ruled out.

 Syed Muhammad Ahsan v. Munawar Ali Naqvi (2020 YLR 1 Karachi High Court – Sindh) 2020  YLR  1

In the case of Syed Muhammad Ahsan v. Munawar Ali Naqvi, the appellant challenged the acquittal of the accused who were absconding during the trial. The Trial Court had acquitted both the accused who were facing trial and those who were absconding. The High Court held that the Trial Court erred in acquitting the absconding accused along with the ones facing trial, as their cases should have been separated. The High Court set aside the acquittal of the absconding accused and remanded the case to the Trial Court for proper proceedings.

 Rana Nasir Ali v. Gul Agha (2020 YLR 2331 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Rana Nasir Ali v. Gul Agha, the applicant claimed to have purchased property through a registered sale deed and accused the respondent of illegal possession. The respondent, however, claimed his right through a sale agreement and a registered power of attorney executed by the original owner. The court found that the criminal action under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was not proper in this case, as the possession issue was rooted in a civil dispute over ownership. The court stated that the fate of registered documents should be decided through a civil action.

Abdul Bari v. Amir Muhammad (2020 MLD 1798 Quetta High Court – Balochistan)

In the case of Abdul Bari v. Amir Muhammad, the petitioner filed an application under Section 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to call the SHO as a witness to tender a document. The Trial Court dismissed the application. The High Court held that if a person’s evidence was essential for a just decision of the case, there was no discretion to prevent that person from being examined as a witness. The court clarified that the power to summon a witness under Section 540 of the Cr.P.C. could be exercised either suo motu or through an application. The High Court allowed the application and directed the Trial Court to call the proposed witness to place the document on record.

Akhter Hussain v. Station House Officer Sachal Karachi (2020 PCrLJN 20 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Akhter Hussain v. Station House Officer Sachal Karachi, the appellant and complainant entered into a joint application for compromise. The complainant stated that possession of the disputed property had been handed over to him, and he had no objection to the appellant’s acquittal from all charges. The High Court accepted the compromise application and acquitted the appellant-accused, considering the amicable settlement between the parties.The same view was held in  Abdul Bari v. Amir Muhammad (2020 MLD 1798 Quetta High Court – Balochistan)

Saleem Ran v. 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, “Malir”, Karachi (2020 YLR 634 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Saleem Ran v. 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, “Malir”, Karachi, the applicants alleged illegal dispossession by a Housing Co-operative Society. The applicants claimed to be residents on the land and contended that the Housing Society could not file an illegal dispossession complaint. However, the court found the documents produced by the applicants to be fake. The court determined that the Housing Society had acquired the land through proper procedures and had good title, while the applicants were encroachers with no credible claim. The High Court declined to interfere with the order of possession issued by the Trial Court, emphasizing that the revision was not maintainable due to laches.

 Hanfia Alamgir Jame Masjid Trust v. Mst. Nuzhat Fatima (2020 MLD 46 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Hanfia Alamgir Jame Masjid Trust v. Mst. Nuzhat Fatima, the petitioner’s complaint for illegal dispossession was dismissed by the Trial Court. The petitioner alleged that the widow of his earlier tenant, through her attorney, had dispossessed him. However, the court found that the tenancy had been transferred to the deceased tenant’s son, not to the respondent. The petitioner could not provide evidence that the son had acted on the respondent’s behalf. The court held that involving a household lady to intensify pressure was not justified. The criminal revision was dismissed.

 Shamsher Ali v. Jamshid (2020 PCrLJ 1467 Peshawar High Court)

In the case of Shamsher Ali v. Jamshid, the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents for forcible dispossession from land. The Trial Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the respondents did not qualify as a “Qabza group” under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The High Court ruled that the use of the term “Qabza Group” in the Act’s preamble could not override the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. The court held that co-owners could not claim immunity from the Act’s provisions, and no co-owner could be allowed to forcefully dispossess another. The High Court directed the Trial Court to proceed according to law, allowing parties to produce evidence.

 Barkat Ali v. Mst. Naseem (2020 YLRN 131 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Barkat Ali v. Mst. Naseem, the complainant/respondents purchased a disputed plot, and the accused persons/appellants were in illegal possession. The complainant/respondents filed a civil suit that was decreed, and an unsuccessful civil suit was filed by the applicants. The complainant/respondents filed an application under Section 7(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, seeking eviction and possession. The Trial Court directed the accused persons to hand over possession, which the High Court upheld. The High Court held that even if the impugned order had technical issues, it could not allow the retention of ill-gotten gains. The Trial Court had not committed any illegality, and the order was justified.

 Nadeem Waqar Khan v. Javed Masood Ahmed Khan (2020 PLD 8 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Nadeem Waqar Khan v. Javed Masood Ahmed Khan, the court clarified the scope of the complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court emphasized that while a complaint under the Act is maintainable against any person who forcibly dispossesses the occupier or owner, it is not meant to settle civil disputes or serve as a substitute for a civil suit.

 Munib v. Ali Mardan (2020 YLR 457 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Munib v. Ali Mardan, the petitioner had filed a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which was dismissed without taking cognizance. During the pendency of a criminal miscellaneous application against the dismissal, the complainant passed away. The High Court ruled that a fresh criminal complaint could be filed in such cases based on new facts and circumstances. The legal heirs of the deceased complainant were advised to file a fresh complaint under the Act.

 Manzoor Ali v. State (2020 MLD 1138 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Manzoor Ali v. State, the complainant alleged that he was the lawful owner of the property and accused-appellants were convicted by the Trial Court. However, the record showed that the complainant had allowed the accused-appellants to reside on the property, indicating that there was no illegal entrance or dispossession. The court found that the complainant failed to prove forcible dispossession or other elements of the offence  under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appeal was allowed, and the accused were acquitted.

Syed Muhammad Ahsan v. Munawar Ali Naqvi (2020 YLR 1 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Syed Muhammad Ahsan v. Munawar Ali Naqvi, the court discussed the scope of proceedings under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court highlighted that a remedy is provided in Section 3(2) of the Act for aggrieved parties affected by other offence s committed by the same party who contravened Section 3(1) of the Act. It was explained that accused parties can be charged and tried separately for other offence s committed during the course of an offence  punishable under Section 3(2) of the Act. This approach is protected by Section 403(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C).

 Abdul Bari v. Amir Muhammad (2020 MLD 1798 Quetta High Court – Balochistan)

In Abdul Bari v. Amir Muhammad, the petitioner applied under Section 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) to summon the SHO as a witness to present a document. The Trial Court dismissed the application, but the High Court found that the Trial Court failed to consider whether summoning the proposed witness was essential for a just decision of the case. The High Court ruled that the Trial Court should have taken into account whether the proposed witness was a material witness and whether their testimony was necessary for a fair decision. The High Court allowed the application and directed the Trial Court to summon the proposed witness to present the document.

Saleem Ran v. IInd Additional Sessions Judge, “Malir”, Karachi (2020 YLR 634 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In Saleem Ran v. IInd Additional Sessions Judge, the dispute revolved around a housing scheme and the alleged dispossession of applicants by a housing society. The applicants claimed that they were residents on the land in question and that the housing society couldn’t file an illegal dispossession complaint. However, the High Court found that the documents produced by the applicants were apparently fake and lacked credibility. The Housing Society had acquired the land in question through proper formalities. The Housing Society’s title over the land was established, and the applicants’ claims were dismissed.

Shamsheer Ali v. Jamshid (2020 PCrLJ 1467 Peshawar High Court)

In Shamsheer Ali v. Jamshid, the case involved a complaint of forcible dispossession from land. The Trial Court dismissed the complaint on the basis that the respondents were not a “Qabza group” and therefore didn’t fall under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The High Court clarified that the term “Qabza group” in the preamble of the Act couldn’t override the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. The Act doesn’t grant co-owners immunity from its provisions, and one co-owner can’t use force against another. The Trial Court was directed to proceed according to law and allow parties to present evidence.

Nadeem Waqar Khan v. Javed Masood Ahmed Khan (2020 PLD 8 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In Nadeem Waqar Khan v. Javed Masood Ahmed Khan, the applicant claimed that his brother, also his business partner, had dispossessed him from their joint business (restaurant). The Trial Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the remedy of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was not available for a partner against another partner, as each partner is presumed to be in possession or control of the business. Therefore, the Act didn’t apply in this partner-partner dispute.

Akhter Hussain v. Station House Officer Sachal Karachi (2020 PCrLJN 20 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In Akhter Hussain v. Station House Officer Sachal Karachi, the case involved a compromise between the appellant and the complainant. The complainant had no objection to the appellant’s acquittal and the dismissal of charges. The High Court acknowledged that while the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 doesn’t explicitly address compoundability, disputes related to property are presumed to be of civil nature. The Court accepted the compromise and acquitted the appellant, considering the parties’ intention to live in peace.

 Shahrukh Akbar v. Mst. Farah Naz (2020 MLD 170 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In Shahrukh Akbar v. Mst. Farah Naz, the appellant complained of illegal dispossession after alleged forceful occupation by the respondents. However, the key witness, the chowkidar (watchman) who was present at the scene, was not named in the memo of the petition and was not examined before the Trial Court. The High Court emphasized the importance of producing crucial witnesses and found that the act of withholding a material witness could undermine the appellant’s case.

Manzoor Ali v. State (2020 MLD 1138 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In Manzoor Ali v. State, the complaint alleged illegal dispossession, but the evidence suggested that the complainant had allowed the accused-appellants to reside on the property. The circumstances indicated that there was no illegal or wrongful entry onto the property, and the offence  under Section 3(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was not established. Due to the lack of successful establishment of forcible or wrongful dispossession, which was a necessary ingredient for the offence , the High Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the accused, and set aside the conviction and sentence.

Syed Muhammad Ahsan v. Munawar Ali Naqvi (2020 YLR 1 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In Syed Muhammad Ahsan v. Munawar Ali Naqvi, the accused contested that the complainant lacked lawful authority to file legal proceedings under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). However, the High Court clarified that criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 cannot be regulated by the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The two codes serve different purposes and thus cannot be directly applied interchangeably in the context of criminal proceedings.

Muhammad Anwar Qureshi v. State (2019 YLR 2307 Lahore High Court – Lahore)

In Muhammad Anwar Qureshi v. State, the appellant challenged the acquittal of the accused, contending that the complainant had already lodged an FIR and a civil suit was pending. The High Court ruled that the concept of double jeopardy applies when there’s an acquittal after a trial in a court of competent jurisdiction. Mere lodging of an FIR and filing a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 does not invoke the rule of double jeopardy. The pendency of a civil suit related to the property doesn’t bar filing a complaint under the Act.

Imtiaz Ahmad v. Common Service Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (2019 YLRN 101 Lahore High Court – Lahore)

In Imtiaz Ahmad v. Common Service Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., the petitioner sought dismissal of a complaint under Section 265-K of the Cr.P.C. The Trial Court dismissed the application, stating that the petitioner had no locus standi to file such an application. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, reasoning that the petitioner wasn’t an accused or complainant but rather a stranger to the proceedings.

Ali Akbar v. 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Badin (2019 MLD 1428 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In Ali Akbar v. 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Badin, the complainant needed to establish that they were the owner or occupier of the property, the accused entered without lawful authority, and they intended to dispossess or control the property. The scope of the offence  described in Section 3(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was emphasized.

Brig. (Retd.) Syed Ali Mohsin v. Fazal Inam Sabir alias Saaien Inam (2019 PCrLJ 563 Islamabad)

In Brig. (Retd.) Syed Ali Mohsin v. Fazal Inam Sabir alias Saaien Inam, the complainant was aggrieved by the Trial Court’s dismissal of their complaint. The High Court highlighted that when contravention of Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is made out in a complaint, it’s a non-cognizable offence  under Section 4(2) of the Act. While there’s no explicit provision for appeal in the Act, the provisions of appeal and revision in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 apply by implication. The complainant should have availed the remedy of filing an application for leave to appeal within 60 days from the order, instead of instituting a revision.

Muhammad Bilal v. Ahmad Sultan (2019 PCrLJ 1634 Peshawar High Court)

In Muhammad Bilal v. Ahmad Sultan, the case involved an encroachment rather than an illegal dispossession. The offence  of “illegal dispossession” under the Act was distinguished from mere encroachment. The complaint did not involve intentional grabbing of the property, lacking the element of mens rea required for the offence  under Section 3 of the Act.

Muhammad Siddique v. IIIRD Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (2019 YLR 1926 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In Muhammad Siddique v. IIIRD Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, the complaint was filed by the respondent seeking restoration of possession under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The respondent withdrew the complaint after obtaining possession. The petitioner argued that the complaint couldn’t be withdrawn without returning the possession. The High Court clarified that the offence  and offender were described in Section 3 of the Act without restrictions. The Court set aside the order of withdrawal and remanded the matter to the Trial Court to decide the application afresh.

 Ali Akbar v. 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Badin (2019 MLD 1428 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In Ali Akbar v. 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Badin, the scope of the term “owner” and “occupier” under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was discussed. The Court clarified that only an owner and/or occupier of the subject property can approach a court of competent jurisdiction for seeking relief under the provisions of the Act.

 Ghulam Ali v. Abu Bakar (2019 MLD 1163 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In Ghulam Ali v. Abu Bakar, the Court emphasized that to maintain a conviction under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the complainant must establish either illegal dispossession through unauthorized entry or by proving forcible or wrongful possession. Additionally, the complainant must be the “owner” or “occupier” of the disputed property and must have been forcibly or wrongfully removed.

Ghulam Hyder v. Chuttal Khan (2019 MLD 1840 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In Ghulam Hyder v. Chuttal Khan, the Court discussed the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, in relation to eviction and the mode of recovery of possession as interim relief. For the court to order restoration of possession under Section 7 of the Act as an interim relief, it must be prima facie established that the complainant is the lawful owner of the property, was illegally and forcibly dispossessed and that the accused is in unlawful possession.

 Ali Akbar v. 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Badin (2019 MLD 1428 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In Ali Akbar v. 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Badin (2019 MLD 1428 Karachi High Court – Sindh), the Court addressed a case involving government land. The petitioner was aggrieved by the Trial Court’s dismissal of his complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court noted that the respondents had encroached upon government property. The petitioner failed to establish himself as the owner or occupier of the subject property. The High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to take appropriate action for the removal of encroachments from the government property.

Muhammad Siddique v. IIIRD Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (2019 YLR 1926 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Muhammad Siddique v. IIIRD Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad was revisited in this citation. The case involved the withdrawal of a complaint by the respondent after obtaining possession of the disputed property. The High Court clarified that whoever commits the offence  of illegal dispossession against a lawful owner or occupier can be prosecuted under the substantive provisions of the Act without any restriction. The High Court set aside the order of withdrawal of the complaint and remanded the matter to the Trial Court.

 Muhammad Bilal v. Ahmad Sultan (2019 PCrLJ 1665 Peshawar High Court)

In Muhammad Bilal v. Ahmad Sultan, the Court distinguished between “illegal dispossession” and mere encroachment. The complainant’s claim was of encroachment rather than criminal trespass or unlawful entry with the intention of dispossession. The Court emphasized that for an offence  under Section 3 of the Act, intentional grabbing of property and the element of mens rea were necessary. The appeal was dismissed as the necessary ingredient of the offence  was not disclosed in the complaint.

Muhammad Sharif v. Haji Noor Muhammad (2019 PCrLJN 116 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Muhammad Sharif v. Haji Noor Muhammad deals with the cognizance of offence s related to illegal dispossession from property. The appellant purchased agricultural land through a registered sale deed and began development on the land. However, interested persons, in collaboration with the respondents, illegally occupied a portion of the land. The Trial Court acquitted the respondents, claiming their possession was not illegal. The High Court held that every illegal dispossession creates grounds for invoking the jurisdiction of criminal courts under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court set aside the judgment and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for a fresh judgment after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

Atta Rasool v. Haji Muhammad Rafique (2019 PCrLJ 1023 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Atta Rasool v. Haji Muhammad Rafique pertains to the remedy provided by the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court reiterated that the remedy provided by the Act cannot be defeated, even if the accused/unauthorized occupant claims any status such as tenant or purchaser. As long as the offence , as described in the Act, has been committed—namely, dispossession of a lawful owner or occupier from immovable property without lawful authority—the remedy under the Act applies.

Israr Ahmed v. State (2019 PCrLJN 31 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Israr Ahmed v. State involved a complaint regarding illegal dispossession from government land. The complainant alleged illegal occupation, but the Trial Court dismissed the complaint based on a revenue report indicating that the land originally belonged to the government. The report also mentioned that the complainant obtained the land through an ex parte civil suit decree against the government, which was pending adjudication. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, concluding that the complaint was rightly dismissed.

Syed Naseem Ahmed v. Mst. Rehana Taj (2019 PLD 94 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Syed Naseem Ahmed v. Mst. Rehana Taj concerns an alleged illegal dispossession between a landlord and tenant. The petitioner-tenant claimed that the respondent-landlady unlawfully dispossessed him from the rented premises. The Trial Court dismissed the complaint, erroneously concluding that the case did not fall within the ambit of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. However, the petitioner’s status as a tenant since 2012 and the deposit of rent with the Rent Controller made the case applicable under the Act. The revision petition was accepted.

 Imtiaz Ahmad v. Common Service Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (2019 YLRN 101 Lahore High Court – Lahore)

Imtiaz Ahmad v. Common Service Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. addresses the issue of locus standi in cases of illegal dispossession. The petitioner was neither an accused nor complainant but sought dismissal of the complaint under Section 265-K of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Trial Court rejected the application, stating that the petitioner lacked locus standi. The High Court declined to interfere, maintaining that the petitioner, as a stranger to the proceedings, couldn’t file the application. The petition was dismissed.

 Ali Akbar v. 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Badin (2019 MLD 1428 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In Ali Akbar v. 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Badin, the scope of the prevention of illegal dispossession is discussed. To benefit from Section 3(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the complainant must establish that they are the owner or occupier of the subject property. The accused should have entered the property without lawful authority and with the intention to dispossess, grab, control, or occupy the property.

 Fazal-ur-Rehman v. State (2019 MLD 57 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Fazal-ur-Rehman v. State deals with the reduction of sentence in cases of illegal possession. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment and compensation. The appellant and complainant reached an agreement wherein the complainant forgave the compensation amount and agreed to reduce the sentence. The High Court modified the judgment, reducing the sentence to the period already spent in jail and recalling the compensation order.

Amjad Ali v. State (2019 MLD 189 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Amjad Ali v. State concerns the demarcation of property in cases of illegal dispossession. The Trial Court directed the Mukhtiarkar to demarcate the property. The High Court noted that the matter was solely about property demarcation and should have been resolved through the civil or revenue court with jurisdiction. The Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction, and the criminal miscellaneous application was allowed.

 Ghulam Hyder v. Chuttal Khan (2019 MLD 1840 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Ghulam Hyder v. Chuttal Khan underscores that the owner and/or occupier of the property can approach the court of competent jurisdiction for relief under the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

Atta Rasool v. Haji Muhammad Rafique (2019 PCrLJ 1023 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Atta Rasool v. Haji Muhammad Rafique reiterates that the remedy provided by the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, cannot be defeated, even if the accused/unauthorized occupant claims any status such as tenant or purchaser. The offence , as described in the Act, is applicable when there is dispossession of a lawful owner or occupier from immovable property without lawful authority.

 Muhammad Siddique v. Muhammad Harif (2018 PCrLJ 1341 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Muhammad Siddique v. Muhammad Harif involves the appreciation of evidence in cases of illegal possession. The complainant alleged dispossession but failed to identify the area or provide testimony from independent witnesses to establish their possession. The Court concluded that the complainant could not prove the offence  under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and the appellants were acquitted.

 Roidad Khan v. Zigrawar alias Aigre (2018 YLRN 230 Peshawar High Court)

In the case of Roidad Khan v. Zigrawar alias Aigre (2018 YLRN 230), the Peshawar High Court highlighted the legal obligations in cases of illegal dispossession. The Court emphasized that when the complainant establishes a case of illegal dispossession and the accused fails to provide a legal defense, the Trial Court is obligated under Section 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, to direct the restoration of possession to the complainant. The Court clarified that the said provision of law unequivocally states that if the court finds that the owner or occupier was illegally dispossessed or if the property was grabbed in contravention of Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the Court has the authority to order the restoration of the property to its rightful owner. The Court modified the impugned judgment accordingly and remanded the case to the Trial Court for further proceedings in accordance with Section 8 of the Act.

Muhammad Javed v. VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (2018 PCrLJ 1522 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Muhammad Javed v. VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (2018 PCrLJ 1522), the Karachi High Court emphasized the principle that no one can be evicted from a property without due process of the law. The Court highlighted that even in cases involving trespassers, due process must be followed for any eviction or dispossession to occur. The Court’s ruling underlines the importance of legal procedures and safeguards, even in cases of alleged illegal possession.

 Muhammad Ibrahim v. State (2018 PCrLJ 1490 Peshawar High Court)

Muhammad Ibrahim v. State (2018 PCrLJ 1490) addressed a significant legal question pertaining to cases of illegal dispossession. The case dealt with the issue of whether, after framing a charge under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, a complaint could be dismissed for non-prosecution and the accused could be discharged. The Court ruled that once a charge is framed, the Trial Court’s options are limited to either acquitting or convicting the accused based on the charge. The Court clarified that the Trial Court cannot discharge the accused from the case after framing a charge. The case provides important guidance on the legal consequences of framing a charge under the Act.

Dr. Bhagwan Das v. Haji Ghano Khan (2018 YLRN 238 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

Dr. Bhagwan Das v. Haji Ghano Khan (2018 YLRN 238) sheds light on the scope and objectives of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Karachi High Court emphasized that the Act serves as special legislation aimed at protecting the rights of lawful owners and occupiers of immovable properties from illegal or forcible dispossession by property grabbers. The Court’s analysis of the Act’s preamble and Section 3 underscores its objective to safeguard the rights of individuals against wrongful dispossession.

Dr. Bhagwan Das v. Haji Ghano Khan (2018 YLRN 238 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In Dr. Bhagwan Das v. Haji Ghano Khan (2018 YLRN 238), the Karachi High Court addressed an appeal against acquittal in a case of illegal dispossession. The Court emphasized that disputes involving property settlement are best resolved in civil courts. The Court highlighted that in cases where there is pending civil litigation between the parties regarding property rights, the proper forum for settling the dispute is the civil court. The appeal was dismissed by the Court, and the Court supported the Trial Court’s acquittal based on a proper evaluation of evidence and legal reasoning.

 Said Akbar v. State (2018 YLR 486 Peshawar High Court)

In the case of Said Akbar v. State (2018 YLR 486), the Peshawar High Court addressed a complaint of illegal dispossession. The respondent alleged that the petitioners forcibly took possession of a house in their absence. The complaint was subject to police inquiry, and the police submitted a report declaring the complaint maintainable. The Court found that the complaint disclosed a claim of ownership based on an agreement. The Trial Court correctly posted the complaint for trial, recognizing that the legality of the agreement required further evidence. The Court dismissed the constitutional petition, finding no jurisdictional error in the Trial Court’s order.

Taimoor Ahmad v. Additional Sessions Judge (2018 YLRN 81 Lahore High Court – Lahore)

In the case of Taimoor Ahmad v. Additional Sessions Judge (2018 YLRN 81), the Lahore High Court examined the application of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) in cases of illegal dispossession. The Court ruled that under Section 9 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the provisions of the Cr.P.C are made specifically applicable to proceedings under the Act. The Court clarified that once cognizance is taken under Section 4 of the Act, the procedure outlined in Section 5 of the Act should be followed, instead of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. The Court set aside the Trial Court’s decision to forward the matter for inquiry under Section 202 and allowed the constitutional petition.

 Aleemuddin v. Balban Hameed (2018 YLR 41 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Aleemuddin v. Balban Hameed (2018 YLR 41), the Karachi High Court dealt with a complaint of illegal dispossession. The complainant alleged that he was the owner of a property and that the respondents encroached upon it without lawful authority. The Court found that the complaint lacked key elements required under Section 3 of the Act. Notably, the complaint did not mention the use of force for dispossession, lacked the date of dispossession, and relied on a power of attorney not on record. The Court concluded that the dispute was of a civil nature and dismissed the application, highlighting that civil courts are the appropriate venue for resolving such matters.

 Ms. Nazira Shafaat v. Syed Feroz Ali (2018 YLRN 2 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Ms. Nazira Shafaat v. Syed Feroz Ali (2018 YLRN 2), the Karachi High Court addressed an appeal against dismissal under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The parties were co-owners of the disputed property. The Court found that the Trial Court incorrectly dismissed the complaint, asserting that the respondents were not property grabbers or part of a land mafia. The Court emphasized that even if the respondents did not fall under those categories, they could still be prosecuted under Section 3 of the Act. However, given the nature of the dispute and ongoing civil litigation, the Court concluded that the case did not fall within the scope of the Act and dismissed the revision.

Muhammad Ibrahim v. State (2018 PCrLJ 1490 Peshawar High Court)

Muhammad Ibrahim v. State (2018 PCrLJ 1490) revolved around the legal implications of dismissing a complaint for non-prosecution after framing a charge under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court clarified that once a charge is framed, the Trial Court’s options are limited to either acquitting or convicting the accused based on the charge. The Court emphasized that the Trial Court cannot discharge the accused from the case after framing a charge. The Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case to the Trial Court for a proper decision based on merits and in accordance with the law.

Dr. Bhagwan Das v. Haji Ghano Khan (2018 YLRN 238 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Dr. Bhagwan Das v. Haji Ghano Khan (2018 YLRN 238), the Karachi High Court dealt with an appeal against acquittal in a case of illegal dispossession. The parties held conflicting versions regarding ownership of the disputed land, and civil litigation was pending over its title. The Court highlighted that controversies concerning the property should be resolved by the civil court after recording evidence from both parties. Since the dispute centered on property settlement, the proper forum was the civil court. The Court found no gross misreading of evidence leading to miscarriage of justice and dismissed the appeal, affirming the Trial Court’s acquitted decision.

Case 57: Basar v. State (2018 PCrLJN 8 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Basar v. State (2018 PCrLJN 8), the Karachi High Court examined an appeal involving illegal dispossession. The prosecution failed to produce independent witnesses, leading to a presumption that their testimony would not support the prosecution’s version. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence. The complaint was deemed to be dismissed.

 Basar v. State (2018 PCrLJN 8 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the same case of Basar v. State (2018 PCrLJN 8), the Karachi High Court reviewed a different aspect of the appeal involving illegal dispossession. The complainant alleged dispossession from land owned by him, while the accused contended that the complainant encroached on their land. The Court found inconsistencies in the complainant’s stance, noting that the complainant’s absence during the alleged dispossession led to hearsay information forming the basis of his claims. Lack of title documents and independent witnesses further weakened the complainant’s case. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence, and deemed the complaint to be dismissed.

Muhammad Javed v. The Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (2018 PCrLJ 1522 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Muhammad Javed v. The Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (2018 PCrLJ 1522), the Karachi High Court addressed observations made in a complaint of illegal dispossession. The Court clarified that its observations were tentative and based solely on the available record. These observations wouldn’t affect subsequent proceedings that would decide the title and occupancy rights of the property.The complainant alleged that he was the exclusive owner and purchaser of the property, claiming unlawful possession by the respondent. The Trial Court dismissed the complaint, deeming the dispute civil in nature and lacking elements connecting the respondent to a qabza group or property grabber. The Court found that the sale deed and timeline raised doubts about the complainant’s possession. It concluded that the matter was civil in nature and beyond the jurisdiction of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was dismissed accordingly. Basar v. State (2018 PCrLJN 8 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Basar v. State (2018 PCrLJN 8), the Karachi High Court analyzed a situation involving illegal dispossession. The dispute centered on the factual and civil nature of the location and demarcation of respective lands. Both parties had filed civil suits relating to the same land. The Court determined that the dispute was beyond the scope and spirit of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside, deeming the complainant’s complaint to be dismissed.

Ms. Nazira Shafaat v. Syed Feroz Ali (2018 YLRN 2 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Ms. Nazira Shafaat v. Syed Feroz Ali (2018 YLRN 2), the Karachi High Court addressed illegal possession of property involving co-owners. The Trial Court dismissed the complaint, stating that the respondents were not part of a qabza group, land mafia, or property grabber, and that a civil dispute existed between the parties. The Court noted that the complainant was the second wife of the property’s real owner, and the respondent was the son of the real owner’s first wife, living on the property. The Court found that civil litigation was already pending between the parties in a court of competent jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that civil disputes should be resolved in civil courts and that the present matter did not fall under the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The revision was dismissed.

 Mohammad Ismail v. Abdul Jabbar (2018 MLD 1462 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Mohammad Ismail v. Abdul Jabbar (2018 MLD 1462), the Karachi High Court examined a dispute between co-sharers concerning illegal dispossession. The applicants were co-sharers in possession of a property and had been dragged into proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court concluded that the applicants’ status as co-owners or co-sharers excluded them from such proceedings. The High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order, allowing the application in the circumstances.

Muhammad Ibrahim v. State (2018 PCrLJ 1490 Peshawar High Court)

In the case of Muhammad Ibrahim v. State (2018 PCrLJ 1490), the Peshawar High Court addressed the issue of dismissing a complaint for non-prosecution in a case of illegal dispossession. The petitioner’s complaint was dismissed by the Trial Court for non-prosecution and want of proof, leading to the accused’s discharge. The petitioner challenged this decision, questioning whether a complaint could be dismissed for non-prosecution after framing a charge under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The High Court held that once a charge was framed, the Trial Court could only either acquit or convict the accused based on the charge framed. The complaint could not be dismissed for non-prosecution, and the Trial Court’s decision was set aside. The case was remanded to the Trial Court for proper consideration in accordance with the law.

Taimoor Ahmad v. Additional Sessions Judge (2018 YLRN 81 Lahore High Court – Lahore)

In the case of Taimoor Ahmad v. Additional Sessions Judge (2018 YLRN 81), the Lahore High Court examined the extent and applicability of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, in cases of illegal dispossession. The complainant alleged forcible dispossession from agricultural land. The Court noted that under Section 9 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, provisions of the Cr.P.C. were applicable to proceedings under the Act. The Trial Court’s procedure, however, deviated from the language of the Act by forwarding the matter for inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court allowed the constitutional petition in this regard.

 Qabil Khan v. Vth Additional Sessions Judge South, Karachi (2018 PCrLJ 1027 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Qabil Khan v. Vth Additional Sessions Judge South, Karachi (2018 PCrLJ 1027), the Karachi High Court considered the application of Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court emphasized that for this section to be attracted, the complainant must be the lawful owner or occupier of the property and must have been dispossessed without lawful authority. In this case, the complainant did not meet these criteria, as he was neither the lawful owner nor lawful occupier of the property in question. The Court concluded that Section 3 of the Act was not applicable, and the Trial Court’s order was upheld.

2018 YLRN 238 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In this case, the Karachi High Court discussed the scope and object of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court highlighted that the Act is a special legislation intended to protect lawful owners and occupiers of immovable properties from illegal or forcible dispossession by property grabbers. The preamble of the Act signifies its objective to safeguard the rights of owners and occupiers from such actions.

Ali Murad alias Jameel v. Mohammad Juman (2017 YLRN 42 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Ali Murad alias Jameel v. Mohammad Juman (2017 YLRN 42), the Karachi High Court examined a situation where the parties had counterclaims regarding a property. The Court emphasized that the accused’s contention regarding the pendency of civil appeals had no bearing on the criminal case. The Court held that the complainant’s claim was supported by revenue records, and the Trial Court’s dismissal was based on surmises and conjectures. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for a fresh decision.

Nazo v. Ali Murad (2017 YLRN 305 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Nazo v. Ali Murad (2017 YLRN 305), the Karachi High Court dealt with a complaint filed under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court noted that the applicant failed to disclose specific dates and times of the alleged dispossession, and the respondent had been in possession for about 14 years. The Court concluded that the applicant’s claim was made with the intent to frustrate a civil suit and that the Act could not be invoked for an alleged dispossession that occurred before its promulgation.

Manzoor Ali Bhatti v. Mrs. Farzana Begum (2017 YLRN 201 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Manzoor Ali Bhatti v. Mrs. Farzana Begum (2017 YLRN 201), the Karachi High Court discussed the essential ingredients of Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court emphasized that this section requires both the act of dispossession without lawful authority and the intention to dispossess the actual owner.

 Allah Rakhiyo v. State (2017 YLRN 409 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Allah Rakhiyo v. State (2017 YLRN 409), the Karachi High Court discussed the scope of Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court outlined the elements required for invoking these sections, including establishing the complainant’s ownership or occupation of the property, the accused’s entry without lawful authority, and the intention to dispossess the complainant.

Daim Ali Khan v. Mushtaque Ali alias Farooq (2017 YLR 1456 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Daim Ali Khan v. Mushtaque Ali alias Farooq (2017 YLR 1456), the Karachi High Court examined the dismissal of a complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court highlighted the Trial Court’s obligation to ascertain whether the allegations constituted an offence  under the Act and stressed the importance of recording evidence. The High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order and remanded the case for proper consideration.

 Saifullah v. Piral (2017 YLRN 438 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Saifullah v. Piral (2017 YLRN 438), the Karachi High Court discussed the transfer of a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The complainant sought the transfer of the complaint to another location due to personal insecurity. The Court dismissed the application, emphasizing that it was filed on surmises and conjectures, and lacked sufficient evidence of personal insecurity.

 Mukhtiar Ahmad v. Additional Sessions Judge, Multan (2017 MLD 504 Lahore High Court – Lahore)

In the case of Mukhtiar Ahmad v. Additional Sessions Judge, Multan (2017 MLD 504), the Lahore High Court discussed the principle of double jeopardy in relation to Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Court clarified that the principle of double jeopardy applies when the same act or omission is made punishable under the same provision of law. However, if the act is punishable under different statutes or provisions of law, it cannot be considered the same offence . The Court dismissed the constitutional petition on these grounds.

Asim Siddique Butt v. Muhammad Khursheed Mirza (2017 YLRN 64 Lahore High Court – Lahore)

In the case of Asim Siddique Butt v. Muhammad Khursheed Mirza (2017 YLRN 64), the Lahore High Court examined a complaint filed under Sections 3, 5, 7, and 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court highlighted the significance of timely filing and lack of plausible explanation for the delay in the complaint. The petitioner’s failure to provide specific details and independent witnesses cast doubt on the veracity of the claim. The Court concluded that provisions of the Act could not be invoked without establishing illegal dispossession and dismissed the appeal.

Wazir Ali v. State (2017 PCrLJN 36 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Wazir Ali v. State (2017 PCrLJN 36), the Karachi High Court dealt with a situation where the complainant alleged illegal dispossession. The Court considered contradictory evidence and found material contradictions and exaggerations in the testimony. The Court concluded that the complainant failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the appeal against conviction being allowed.

 Manzoor Ali Bhatti v. Mrs. Farzana Begum (2017 YLRN 201 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Manzoor Ali Bhatti v. Mrs. Farzana Begum (2017 YLRN 201), the Karachi High Court discussed the requirement of clear ownership and possession in cases of illegal dispossession. The Court emphasized the importance of establishing constructive possession and occupation and highlighted the need for credible witnesses. The Court set aside the conviction, stating that proceedings under the Act are not competent unless the clouds over the title of property are cleared or possession is established.

 Ali Murad alias Jameel v. Mohammad Juman (2017 YLRN 305 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Ali Murad alias Jameel v. Mohammad Juman (2017 YLRN 305), the Karachi High Court considered a complaint filed under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court noted that the complainant’s application lacked specific details and relied on contradictory evidence. The Court dismissed the revision application, stating that the complaint was filed with the intent to frustrate civil proceedings and that the Act could not be invoked for dispossession before its promulgation.

 Ali Murad alias Jameel v. Mohammad Juman (2017 YLRN 42 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the same case of Ali Murad alias Jameel v. Mohammad Juman (2017 YLRN 42), the Karachi High Court further emphasized that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 covers all cases of illegal occupation without distinction. The Act does not restrict its application to specific types of ownership disputes.

 Saifullah v. Piral (2017 YLRN 438 Karachi High Court – Sindh)

In the case of Saifullah v. Piral (2017 YLRN 438), the Karachi High Court discussed the transfer of a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The complainant sought a transfer based on personal insecurity, but the application was dismissed due to insufficient evidence and reliance on surmises and conjectures.

 Mst. Gulshan Bibi v. Muhammad Sadiq (2016 PLD 769 Supreme Court)

In the case of Mst. Gulshan Bibi v. Muhammad Sadiq (2016 PLD 769), the Supreme Court clarified the preconditions for prosecuting an accused under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court emphasized that the accused’s credentials or antecedents as a professional land grabber are not necessary for invoking the Act. The key consideration is whether the accused entered the property to dispossess, grab, control, or occupy it without lawful authority. The Court referred to previous judgments to establish this principle.

2016 PCrLJ 1777 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: JAMIA DARUL ULOOM ISLAMIA v. ILYAS

The applicant-complainant alleged that he was the lawful owner or occupier of the disputed property. However, the court dismissed the complaint, determining that the applicant-complainant lacked the status of an “aggrieved person.” The court held that the complainant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish lawful ownership over the property, and he was not authorized by the Management Committee to initiate proceedings against the accused. The court emphasized that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, aimed to protect the rights of lawful owners and occupants, but in this case, the complainant failed to meet the criteria. As such, the revision was dismissed, and the court found no grounds for interference.

2016 MLD 179 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: CHANDO MAL v. OSOO

The appellant-complainant sought to challenge an acquittal appeal against charges of illegal dispossession. The complainant alleged that the respondents forcibly occupied land reserved for the “Meghwar Community” graveyard. However, the court found that the complainant had not adequately substantiated the claim of dispossession. The report from Mukhtiarkar indicated that the respondents had been residing on the premises for years and several families of the “Meghwar Community” were also residing there. The court determined that the complainant failed to meet the elements required by the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appeal was dismissed, considering the absence of supporting evidence and the lack of substantial grounds.

2016 PCrLJ 809 ISLAMABAD: Raja ASIF KHAN v. MASOOD AHMAD BHATTI

The case centered on illegal dispossession, where the burden of proof fell on the complainant to establish all elements of the offence . The complainant was required to show that the accused’s actions indicated an intention to wrongfully possess the property. The court emphasized that intention could be inferred from the actions of the wrongdoer. Therefore, the onus was on the complainant to provide evidence supporting the allegations of illegal dispossession.

2016 PCrLJ 786 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: Mst. NASEEM AZIZ v. State

In the context of illegal possession of property, the court clarified that the criteria for taking cognizance of a complaint were the existence of a prima facie case based on the complainant’s averments and statements on oath. The court’s role was to determine whether a sufficient case had been presented before proceeding with the trial.

2016 MLD 1018 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: Malik MUHAMMAD AKHTAR v. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

The petitioner challenged an order from the Trial Court that granted interim possession to the respondent under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The petitioner argued that the respondent had not provided adequate information about any involvement with land mafia or qabza groups. The court noted that the main complaint was not competent, rendering the order for interim possession illegal. The court’s decision was based on a lack of competency and proper legal procedure.

2016 PCrLJ 672 ISLAMABAD: SAJID JAVED v. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

The case involved the powers of the court to acquit an accused at various stages of proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court determined that an order under Section 265-K of the Criminal Procedure Code before framing of charges would circumvent the powers of the Trial Court. Therefore, such applications were deemed premature.

2016 PCrLJ 366 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: GUL MUHAMMAD v. State

The appellant challenged an order from the Trial Court that directed him to deliver possession of the property to the complainant. The court highlighted the importance of framing charges under Section 7(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and emphasized the need for proper evidence and consideration of the question of title. The impugned order was deemed premature and not in line with the legal requirements.

2016 MLD 1058 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT: MUHAMMAD YASEEN KALWAR v. ALAMZEB

The case revolved around conflicting claims and counterclaims between the parties over property possession. The court noted that the dispute could not be resolved through a constitutional petition due to factual controversies and suggested that the appropriate course was to resolve the matter through proper legal procedures.

2016 PCrLJ 1877 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN: MUHAMMAD AALAM v. MEHMOOD KHAN

The case addressed the maintainability of proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, when there was ongoing civil litigation between the parties. The court clarified that such proceedings could be initiated irrespective of pending civil litigation as long as the offence  described in the Act had been committed.

2016 SCMR 1931 SUPREME-COURT: Shaikh MUHAMMAD NASEEM v. Mst. FARIDA GUL

The case clarified the maintainability of a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, when civil litigation regarding the same property was pending. The court emphasized that the proceedings under the Act could be initiated even if civil litigation was ongoing, as long as the offence  had been committed as per the Act.

2016 PCrLJ 929 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: SAJAWAL KHAN v. AMIR SULTAN

The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against an acquittal. The court highlighted the principle of double presumption of innocence for acquitted accused persons and emphasized the importance of recognized principles for interference in acquittal judgments. The court dismissed the petition, finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment.

2016 YLR 2138 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: GHULAM RAZA v. SAMO KHAN

The case dealt with conflicting stances taken by the complainant in civil litigation and a direct complaint, which invalidated the complainant’s allegations of dispossession. The court highlighted the principle of estoppel and recommended that civil proceedings be adjudicated and decided before pursuing a direct complaint.

2016 PCrLJ 1777 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Complainant needed to prove lawful possession of immovable property and accused’s entry without lawful authority.

Dispute of ownership and possession; applicant’s predecessor allowed to construct a religious institution temporarily.

Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 aims to discourage land grabbers and protect rightful owners.

Applicant failed to prove lawful ownership, not authorized by Management Committee; not an “aggrieved person.”

2016 MLD 179 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Appeal against acquittal for illegal dispossession.

Mukhtiarkar’s report indicated respondents resided on premises for years, inconsistent with complainant’s claim.

Complaint filed after several months without explanation, suggesting premeditation.

Assistant Commissioner’s report lacked indication of relevant incident.

Appeal dismissed, as complainant failed to substantiate claim; Act’s elements missing.

2016 PCrLJ 809 ISLAMABAD

Complainant must prove all elements of S. 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

Intent inferred from wrongdoer’s act; onus on complainant.

2016 PCrLJ 786 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Cognizance based on prima facie case from complaint and complainant’s statements under oath.

Criteria for court to take cognizance.

2016 MLD 1018 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Complaint dismissed; main complaint not competent.

Impugned order illegal; Trial Court didn’t decide application under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C.

Relied on report, failed to discuss cursory statements.

2016 PCrLJ 672 ISLAMABAD

Premature order under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. circumvents Trial Court’s powers.

No illegality found; impugned order maintained.

2016 PCrLJ 1221 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Respondent occupied land, constructed shop; applicant failed to show dispossession.

No specific date and time provided for alleged dispossession.

Impugned order recalled, Trial Court to decide on merits after charge framing.

2016 MLD 1058 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case involved factual controversies and civil issues.

Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 not applicable; civil remedies available.

Constitutional petition not maintainable.

2016 PCrLJ 1877 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Proceeding under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 not appropriate.

Case within scope of Balochistan Tenancy Ordinance, 1978.

Application dismissed; Act’s provisions not met.

2016 YLR 2138 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Contradictory stances in complaint and civil litigation invalidated allegations.

Principle of estoppel applied; complainant not clean-handed.

Civil proceedings should be adjudicated first.

2016 PCrLJ 929 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Respondents not proven to dispossess complainant forcibly.

Dispute of civil nature; complaint based on mala fide and false facts.

Presumption of double innocence applies to acquitted accused.

2016 SCMR 1931 SUPREME-COURT

Proceedings under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 maintainable despite pending civil litigation.

Case of civil and criminal nature could coexist.

2016 MLD 1018 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Complaint dismissed; main complaint not competent.

Impugned order illegal; Trial Court didn’t decide application under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C.

Relied on report, failed to discuss cursory statements.

2016 PCrLJ 672 ISLAMABAD

Premature order under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. circumvents Trial Court’s powers.

No illegality found; impugned order maintained.

2016 PCrLJ 1221 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Respondent occupied land, constructed shop; applicant failed to show dispossession.

No specific date and time provided for alleged dispossession.

Impugned order recalled, Trial Court to decide on merits after charge framing.

2016 PCrLJ 1877 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Proceeding under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 not appropriate.

Case within scope of Balochistan Tenancy Ordinance, 1978.

Application dismissed; Act’s provisions not met.

2016 YLR 2138 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Contradictory stances in complaint and civil litigation invalidated allegations.

Principle of estoppel applied; complainant not clean-handed.

Civil proceedings should be adjudicated first.

2016 PCrLJ 929 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Respondents not proven to dispossess complainant forcibly.

Dispute of civil nature; complaint based on mala fide and false facts.

Presumption of double innocence applies to acquitted accused.

2016 PCrLJ 1103 ISLAMABAD: This case involves the summoning of witnesses under the Illegal Dispossession Act. It highlights the importance of summoning necessary witnesses for a just trial and the opportunity for parties to request witness statements during proceedings.

2016 PCrLJ 1722 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: This citation deals with the restoration of possession under the Illegal Dispossession Act and the requirement for the complainant to establish lawful ownership and dispossessed status for seeking interim relief.

2016 PCrLJ 1777 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: This case involves the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act and the eligibility of an applicant to file a complaint. It emphasizes that only an “aggrieved person” can file proceedings under the Act.

2016 PCrLJ 672 ISLAMABAD: This citation addresses the interplay between the commencement of trial and interim relief under the Illegal Dispossession Act. It clarifies that the trial must progress to a certain stage before certain types of relief can be granted.

2016 PCrLJN 18 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: This case concerns the sufficiency of evidence in a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act and the requirement to establish lawful ownership and possession. The court emphasizes that clear evidence is necessary.

2016 YLR 2367 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT: This citation discusses the applicability of the Illegal Dispossession Act in cases of disputes over property falling under Shamilat (common property). It clarifies that certain disputes may fall under ordinary civil law instead.

2016 MLD 1058 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT: This case involves partition proceedings and the distinction between disputes that fall under the Illegal Dispossession Act and those that are best addressed through partition applications under relevant land laws.

2016 MLD 1690 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT: This citation deals with the maintainability of a constitutional petition regarding illegal possession and emphasizes that civil remedies are more appropriate for resolving such disputes.

2016 MLD 179 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: This case focuses on the nature of disputes and emphasizes that issues of possession and ownership are better addressed through civil proceedings rather than criminal complaints under the Illegal Dispossession Act.

2016 PLD 769 SUPREME-COURT: This case discusses the nature of accused persons in cases under the Illegal Dispossession Act and clarifies that a person need not have the credentials of a professional land grabber for the Act to apply.

2016 YLR 970 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: This citation addresses the proof of title and possession in cases under the Illegal Dispossession Act and the necessity of clear evidence to establish a claim.

2016 MLD 1238 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: This case involves complaints filed by attorneys under the Illegal Dispossession Act and clarifies that attorneys may not be competent to file such complaints on behalf of clients.

2015 MLD 408 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: This citation discusses the scope and applicability of the Illegal Dispossession Act and the basic elements required to invoke its provisions.

In the case of Fahid Ullah Khan vs. Mst. Dil Pazir Jan (2015 PCrLJ 873 Peshawar High Court), the court emphasized that recording a statement on oath is not a mandatory requirement for proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act. The court directed that the complainant should be given the opportunity to provide evidence to support her claims.

In Zahid Hussain vs. Muhammad Hassan Saleem Vato (2015 PCrLJ 308 Peshawar High Court), the court outlined the preconditions for taking cognizance of complaints under the act, including the need to establish possession under proper legal cover, dispossesion by force, lack of title in the accused, and criminal intent. The court stated that unless these elements are satisfied, the trial court is not obliged to summon the accused or proceed with the case.

The case of Abdul Haque vs. Mir Ahmed (2015 CLC 1555 Quetta High Court) dealt with the question of whether an aggrieved person has the right of appeal or revision under the Illegal Dispossession Act. The court concluded that while the act does not explicitly provide for an appeal, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code can be applied when needed to address such issues.

In Agha Imtiaz Ali Khan vs. Muhammad Ziauddin (2015 PCrLJ 205 Karachi High Court), the court stressed the importance of the Trial Court’s duty to ascertain the factual position and exercise discretion in cases involving illegal dispossession. The court pointed out that the Trial Court should not disregard evidence and should exercise discretion judiciously.

2015 PCrLJ 913 Karachi High Court

• Appellant: Ashfaq Ahmed
• Opponent: Zafar Iqbal
• Sections: 3 & 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, Section 417(2-A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
• Summary: The appellant challenged the acquittal order passed by the Trial Court against the respondent accused. The dispute revolved around a plot of land subject to ongoing civil and criminal proceedings between the parties. The court highlighted the limited scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which pertains solely to illegal dispossession. The court’s powers under Section 3 of the Act were limited to determining illegal dispossession, not property title or document authenticity. The appellant’s claim of possession contradicted his own application statement, stating that the respondent was in possession on the crucial date. The appeal against the acquittal was dismissed.

2015 PCrLJ 1490 Quetta High Court

• Appellant: Abdul Haque
• Opponent: Mir Ahmed
• Sections: 3, 4 & 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, Sections 435 & 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
• Summary: The appellant challenged the dismissal of his complaint, which was dismissed before taking cognizance of the offence and framing of the charge. The Trial Court concluded that the matter was of a civil nature, not within the ambit of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appellant argued that the dismissal of the complaint was within the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction. The High Court deemed the revision petition competent as no order of conviction or acquittal was passed. The High Court’s intervention was required to determine the legality of the Trial Court’s order.

2015 YLR 1956 Karachi High Court

• Appellant: Abdul Razaque
• Opponent: Investigating Officer of Crime No. 185 of 2012, Police Station Kandiaro
• Sections: 561-A & 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Sections 3, 4 & 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005)
• Summary: A complaint was filed for property possession. During the complaint’s pendency, the Trial Court ordered property restoration based on the complainant’s application. A criminal case was subsequently registered against the complainant. The police submitted a cancellation report, which was treated as a speaking order. The High Court found no infirmity in the Magistrate’s order and noted the absence of sufficient evidence against the respondents. The application was disposed of.

2015 PLD 14 Karachi High Court

• Appellant: Muhammad Saleh
• Opponent: Province of Sindh through District Coordination Officer
• Sections: Section 11 & Order VIII of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005), Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan
• Summary: The case concerned the maintainability of a suit under the Specific Relief Act and the Illegal Dispossession Act. The High Court ruled that the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was limited to addressing illegal dispossession. The court held that claims related to authenticity or title were not within the Act’s purview. The High Court found the suit maintainable and not subject to O. VII, R. 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The constitutional petition was allowed.

2014 YLR 599 Lahore High Court

• Appellant: Khurram Shahzad
• Opponent: Mst. Shahida Nasreen
• Section: 3 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: The complainant, who owned the property in question, alleged that the accused, in collusion with a tenant, illegally possessed her house. The accused argued that the complainant, residing in the U.K., could not be considered in possession. The court rejected this argument, stating that “possession” is a relative term and does not require clinching tenacity over the property. The court held that even if the complainant received rent through a manager or had the property under lock and key, she could be considered in possession.

2014 PCrLJ 1659 Karachi High Court

• Appellant: Sarfaraz Ahmed
• Opponent: Mst. Naheed
• Sections: 3, 4 & 7 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005), Sections 417(2-A) & 265-K (Criminal Procedure Code, V of 1898)
• Summary: The Trial Court dismissed the complainant’s application under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and also acquitted the accused under Section 265-K of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court noted inconsistent findings and contradictions in the orders based on the same evidence. The court held that the Trial Court acted hastily in passing the acquittal order and directed the Trial Court to record evidence and decide the case strictly on merits.

2014 YLR 2176 Karachi High Court

• Appellant: Dr. Baber Yaqoob Sheikh
• Opponent: Haris Hafeez
• Sections: Preamble, 3, 4 & 5 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: The court addressed the scope and applicability of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Act was deemed applicable when a person complained against lacked title, had taken possession by force, took over the property without due process, and belonged to a group of land grabbers. The court emphasized that an application or complaint under this Act could only be entertained if there was prima facie material against the accused. The court highlighted that the Act was not meant to convert civil disputes into criminal offence s.

2014 YLR 390 Lahore High Court

• Appellant: Muhammad Hayat Khan
• Opponent: State
• Sections: 3 & 7 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for illegal dispossession. However, the complainant was not present at the place of occurrence during the relevant time. The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, stating that the complainant failed to provide evidence of the petitioner belonging to a “Qabza group.” The dispute was related to property title, and the case did not fall under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

2014 MLD 1021 Peshawar High Court

• Appellant: Ayub Khan
• Opponent: State
• Sections: 561-A (Criminal Procedure Code), 3, 5, 6 & 7 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: The complainants were owners in possession of a disputed property. The court held that the petitioners’ rights should be considered after recording evidence and only after the finalization of the civil suit filed by them. The court noted that a civil suit for possession was filed much later than the complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court emphasized that the Act’s operation was restricted to cases where dispossession from immovable property occurred.

2013 MLD 1245 Karachi High Court

• Appellant: Muhammad Alim
• Opponent: Muhammad Younis
• Sections: Preamble, 3 & 4 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: The court clarified that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was not retrospective in effect. If the alleged illegal dispossession occurred before the Act’s promulgation, the Act’s provisions were not applicable. In this case, the alleged dispossession took place in 1984, and the Act was enacted in 2005.

2013 YLR 1001 Peshawar High Court

• Appellant: Nawabzada Muhammad Usman Khan
• Opponent: Nawabzada Muhammad Fateh Khan
• Sections: 3 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005), 9 (Specific Relief Act, 1877), Article 199 (Constitution of Pakistan)
• Summary: The court emphasized that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was applicable to cases involving land grabbers or qabza groups. In cases of disputes between co-owners over possession, the Act was not applicable. The court maintained that the dispute was of a civil nature and should be resolved in civil court.

2013 MLD 1564 Karachi High Court

• Appellant: Amroze Khan
• Opponent: Motaser Khan
• Sections: 3 & 4 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: The court reiterated that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was specifically enacted to curb the activities of land grabbers or qabza groups. The court held that the Act’s scope and applicability were limited to cases where illegal dispossession occurred from immovable property. The court emphasized that disputes involving ownership, co-sharers, inheritance, and contractual agreements were of a civil nature and should be resolved in civil court.

2013 PLD 6 Quetta High Court Balochistan

• Appellant: Ishaque
• Opponent: Rasheed
• Section: 3 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005), 265-K & 417 (Criminal Procedure Code)
• Summary: The court held that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was not applicable to cases where ownership of the subject property was not established or where civil proceedings were already pending regarding the same property. In this case, the complainant was not the recorded owner, and civil proceedings were ongoing.

2013 YLR 2203 Peshawar High Court

• Appellant: Sarfaraz
• Opponent: Ehsanullah
• Sections: 3 & 4 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005), 265-K (Criminal Procedure Code), Article 199 (Constitution of Pakistan)
• Summary: The court emphasized that if a dispute was of a civil nature between co-owners, the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, were not applicable. The court held that both parties were claiming ownership, and the complainant’s claim was not supported by conclusive evidence.

2013 MLD 1444 Karachi High Court

• Appellant: Muhammad Aslam
• Opponent: Imamuddin Ahmed
• Sections: Preamble & 3 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: The court clarified that the Trial Court under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was not competent to determine the legal character and make partition of landed property. Such matters were within the jurisdiction of civil courts and revenue forums.

2013 YLR 1580 Karachi High Court

• Appellant: Allah Ditto
• Opponent: Muhammad Ishaq
• Sections: 3, 4 & 5 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: The complainant alleged illegal dispossession and filed a complaint. The Trial Court dismissed the complaint based on police statements without considering the fact of ownership. The High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order and directed the respondent to vacate the land, as they were occupying it illegally.

2013 PCrLJ 256 Peshawar High Court

• Appellant: Kamdar Khan
• Opponent: Hazrat Akbar
• Sections: 3 & 4 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005), 265-K (Criminal Procedure Code)
• Summary: The court emphasized that if a case involved a civil dispute or lacked proof of association with land grabbers, the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, were not applicable. In this case, the dispute was of a civil nature, and the Trial Court had rightly acquitted the accused under Section 265-K.

2013 MLD 622 Peshawar High Court

• Appellant: Haji Abdur Rehman
• Opponent: Ghulam Syed
• Section: 3 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005), Article 199 (Constitution of Pakistan)
• Summary: The complainant admitted being back in possession of the disputed property, and the accused were abroad and unable to reoccupy the property. The court held that the accused did not belong to the class of property grabbers or qabza group, and therefore, the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was not applicable.

2013 YLR 1015 Peshawar High Court

• Appellant: Syed Taskeen Ali Shah
• Opponent: Muhammad Amin
• Section: 3 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005), Article 199 (Constitution of Pakistan)
• Summary: The court held that if the dispute was of a civil nature and co-owners did not support the claim of illegal dispossession, the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, were not applicable.

2013 YLR 133 Karachi High Court Sindh

• Appellant: Muhammad Fareed
• Opponent: State
• Sections: 3 & 5 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: The court clarified that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, cannot be entertained if civil or revenue court proceedings are pending on the matter of possession of the relevant property. The Act’s provisions are restricted to cases involving property grabbers or qabza groups.

2013 PLD 183 Karachi High Court Sindh

• Appellant: Dhani Bux
• Opponent: VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad
• Sections: 3 & 5 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: The court held that matters of redemption of account, such as the release of funds, should be resolved by the civil court. The Trial Court’s decision to dismiss the application for release of funds was upheld.

2013 PCrLJ 188 Quetta High Court Balochistan

• Appellant: Shahid Hakeem
• Opponent: Altaf Hussain Agha
• Section: 3 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: To constitute an offence under Section 3(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, both unlawful act (actus rea) and criminal intent (mens rea) must be present. The court clarified that the Act does not apply to cases that are already pending before other forums on the date of its promulgation.

2013 YLR 1001 Peshawar High Court

• Appellant: Nawabzada Muhammad Usman Khan
• Opponent: Nawabzada Muhammad Fateh Khan
• Sections: 3 & Preamble (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: The court emphasized that the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is restricted to immovable property dispossession involving property grabbers or qabza groups.

2013 MLD 778 Lahore High Court Lahore

• Appellant: Dr. Mukhtiar Hussain
• Opponent: Muhammad Aslam
• Sections: 3 & Preamble (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: The court highlighted that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is intended to protect lawful owners and occupiers from illegal dispossession by property grabbers.

2013 PCrLJ 1556 Karachi High Court Sindh

• Appellant: Pervaiz Iqbal Choudhry
• Opponent: Irshad Ali
• Section: 3 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005), 417 (2-A) (Criminal Procedure Code)
• Summary: The court emphasized that for an offence under Section 3(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, both unlawful act (actus rea) and criminal intent (mens rea) must be present. The Act does not have retrospective effect and is applicable to cases not pending before other forums.

2013 MLD 778 Lahore High Court Lahore

• Appellant: Dr. Mukhtiar Hussain
• Opponent: Muhammad Aslam
• Sections: 265-K (Criminal Procedure Code), 5 & 3 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005), Article 199 (Constitution of Pakistan)
• Summary: The court highlighted that the Trial Court cannot engage in investigation after taking cognizance of a case under Section 265-K of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Trial Court should decide the application under Section 265-K based on material already produced by the complainant and available on record.

2013 PLD 183 Karachi High Court Sindh

• Appellant: Dhani Bux
• Opponent: VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad
• Sections: 3 & 5 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: The court affirmed that where a civil court is already seized with a dispute and has regulated possession or granted a decree for possession, the jurisdiction of a Magistrate under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code is excluded. The court maintained the Trial Court’s order in this regard.

2013 YLR 133 Karachi High Court Sindh

• Appellant: Muhammad Fareed
• Opponent: State
• Sections: 3 & 5 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: This citation appears to be repeated. It discusses the limited scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and its applicability to cases involving property grabbers or groups with antecedents of being property grabbers.

2013 YLR 1580 Karachi High Court Sindh

• Appellant: Allah Ditto
• Opponent: Muhammad Ishaq
• Sections: 3, 4 & 5 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005), 145 & 561-A (Criminal Procedure Code)
• Summary: The court recognized the misuse of the criminal law and process to transform a civil dispute into a criminal case for ulterior motives. The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner and emphasized that such misuse is an abuse of the legal process.

2013 MLD 622 Peshawar High Court

• Appellant: Haji Abdur Rehman
• Opponent: Ghulam Syed
• Section: 3 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005), Article 199 (Constitution of Pakistan)
• Summary: This citation appears to be repeated. It discusses the dismissal of a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, due to the complainant regaining possession and the accused not being property grabbers.

2013 YLR 1088 Karachi High Court Sindh

• Appellant: Zehri
• Opponent: Niaz Hussain
• Sections: 3 & 5 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005), 265-K (Criminal Procedure Code)
• Summary: The court emphasized that disputes of a purely civil nature should not be converted into criminal proceedings with ulterior motives. The court quashed the proceedings, allowing the parties to pursue remedies in competent civil courts.

2012 MLD 1652 Peshawar High Court

• Appellant: Walifa Jana
• Opponent: Rahim Jan
• Sections: 3 & 4 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005), Article 199 (Constitution of Pakistan)
• Summary: The court highlighted that concurrent civil and criminal proceedings should not be stayed under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in cases involving bogus stamp papers to establish ownership. The court set aside the Trial Court’s dismissal of the complaint and remanded the matter for proper consideration.

2012 PLD 189 Quetta High Court Balochistan

• Appellant: Abdul Qahir alias Sadiq
• Opponent: Bibi Aisha
• Sections: 2(c), 2(d), 3, 4 & 7 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: Although the complainant was not the recorded owner of the property, the court acknowledged that a Muslim’s estate vests immediately in their heirs upon death. The court determined that the complainant’s watchman residing on the property qualified as her possession. The lodging of an FIR or availing remedy under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, did not bar each other. The Trial Court’s decision was upheld, allowing the complainant’s application under Section 7 of the Act.

2012 PCrLJ 268 Karachi High Court Sindh

• Appellant: Gul Hassan
• Opponent: Muhammad Usman
• Sections: 3 & 4(3) (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: The accused voluntarily appearing through counsel before taking cognizance of the complaint was not in violation of any provision of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The absence of a specific bar allowed the accused to participate and submit documents. The Trial Court’s dismissal of the complainant’s application was justified and not challenged in time.

2012 PCrLJ 1817 Islamabad

• Appellant: Anjum Mubashar Mughal
• Opponent: Additional District and Sessions Judge, Islamabad
• Sections: 3 & 4 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005), 190 & 193 (Criminal Procedure Code)
• Summary: The court emphasized that Section 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, allowed the Sessions Court to take direct cognizance of a complaint. Compliance with Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not necessary when Section 193 itself provided for direct cognizance by a complaint.

2012 SCMR 1533 Supreme Court

• Appellant: Habibullah
• Opponent: Abdul Manan
• Section: 3 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: The Supreme Court acquitted landlords convicted under Section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The evidence did not establish that the landlords were property grabbers or part of a Qabza group. The court found that the dispute was between individuals over immovable property, not warranting action under the Act.

2012 PCrLJ 423 Karachi High Court Sindh

• Appellant: Sarfraz Khan
• Opponent: Allah Bux
• Sections: 3 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005), 52 (Transfer of Property Act, 1882)
• Summary: The complaint was dismissed as the litigation regarding the property was pending prior to the promulgation of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Act had no retrospective effect and couldn’t be applied to cases pending on its promulgation date. The complainant’s purchase of the property, ignoring the principles of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, was not justified. The court found that ignorance of the law wasn’t a ground for leniency.

2012 PLD 399 Karachi High Court Sindh

• Appellant: Jam Suhnal
• Opponent: Muhammad Aqil
• Sections: Preamble & 3 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: The scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, encompassed dispossessions using the words “dispossess”, “grab”, “control”, or “occupy”. The Act wasn’t limited to land grabbers or Qabza groups; it covered all types of dispossessions described by these words.

2012 PCrLJ 52 Karachi High Court Sindh

• Appellant: Haji Abdul Ghaffar
• Opponent: Habib Ismail
• Section: 3 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, covered all cases of illegal occupants without distinction, except those already pending before another forum. The Act aimed to protect the right of lawful owners or occupants, not to perpetuate possession by illegal occupants.

2012 PLD 305 Lahore High Court Lahore

• Appellant: Abdul Wahab
• Opponent: Additional Sessions Judge, Okara
• Sections: 3, 5 & 7 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005), Article 199 (Constitution of Pakistan)
• Summary: The case involved a lessee in possession based on Patadari. A compromise was reached, but the lessee’s check bounced. The lessor sought restoration of possession. The Court held that under the compromise, the lessee’s possession remained lawful, and subsequent actions by the Trial Court were without jurisdiction.

2012 MLD 371 Karachi High Court Sindh

• Appellant: Tanveer Naz
• Opponent: Abdul Rashid
• Sections: 42 (Civil Procedure Code, 1908), Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 (Civil Procedure Code, 1908), 3 & 4 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: The plaintiff obtained interim possession of a property through a criminal complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. However, the plaintiff had not been put in possession through any specific order in the suit for specific performance filed by the defendant. The plaintiff concealed facts and obtained an ad interim order. Due to this concealment and lack of a prima facie case or balance of convenience, the High Court declined to grant interim injunction.

2012 PCrLJ 581 Lahore High Court Lahore

• Appellant: Mst. Neelam Parveen
• Opponent: State
• Sections: Preamble, 3 & 4 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, aimed at property grabbers or “Qabza Groups”. The Act didn’t apply to individuals who weren’t property grabbers. The Act was specifically targeted at intruders using force to take possession illegally.

2012 PCrLJ 1817 Islamabad

• Appellant: Anjum Mubashar Mughal
• Opponent: Additional District and Sessions Judge, Islamabad
• Sections: 3 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005), 265-K (Criminal Procedure Code, 1898), Article 199 (Constitution of Pakistan)
• Summary: The Court of Session’s order dismissing a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, under Section 265-K of the Criminal Procedure Code was found to be illegal. The case was remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh decision.

2012 YLR 2907 Karachi High Court Sindh

• Appellant: Miss Shagufta Parveen Khan
• Opponent: Fateh Jung
• Sections: 3 & 4 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005), 417(2-A), 403 & 265-K (Criminal Procedure Code, 1898)
• Summary: The case involved an appeal against acquittal for illegal dispossession. The Court held that even if a civil suit was filed after a criminal complaint, it was not necessarily of consequence to protect unauthorized possession. The purpose of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was to protect lawful possession, not to perpetuate possession by illegal occupants.

2012 SCMR 229 Supreme Court

• Appellant: Mst. Inayatan Khatoon
• Opponent: Muhammad Ramzan
• Sections: 2, 3, 4 & 5 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005), 200 (Criminal Procedure Code, 1898)
• Summary: The Supreme Court held that High Court’s finding requiring examination of the complainant under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code before taking cognizance under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was contrary to the Act’s language. The case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision according to the Act’s parameters.

2012 PLD 305 Lahore High Court Lahore

• Appellant: Abdul Wahab
• Opponent: Additional Sessions Judge, Okara
• Sections: 3, 5 & 7 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005), Article 199 (Constitution of Pakistan)
• Summary: The case involved a lessee’s possession of disputed land based on Patadari and a compromise. The Court held that a subsequent order for restoration of possession was without jurisdiction since the Trial Court became functus officio after the compromise order. No provision existed in the Act for restoration of possession post-complaint disposal.

2012 PLD 399 Karachi High Court Sindh

• Appellant: Jam Suhnal
• Opponent: Muhammad Aqil
• Sections: Preamble & 3 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: The High Court emphasized that the Act aimed to protect lawful possession, not to perpetuate possession by illegal occupants. The decision to stay criminal proceedings during civil litigation was discretionary, depending on the circumstances and potential prejudice to the accused.

2012 PCrLJ 1405 Lahore High Court Lahore

• Appellant: Muhammad Kausar Iqbal
• Opponent: Additional District and Sessions Judge
• Sections: 3 & 5 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005), Article 199 (Constitution of Pakistan), 202 (Criminal Procedure Code, 1898)
• Summary: The complainant failed to prove possession over the land in question. The Trial Court dismissed the complaint due to lack of evidence of possession, reliance on a misleading police report, and failure to produce certain required documents. The complainant’s contentions were not substantiated, and the High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision.

2012 PCrLJ 927 Lahore High Court Lahore

• Appellant: Syed Tahir Mehmood Shah
• Opponent: Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah
• Sections: 3, 4 & 8 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005), 203, 204, 265-H & 265-K (Criminal Procedure Code, 1898), Article 199 (Constitution of Pakistan)
• Summary: The Sessions Judge’s dismissal of the complaint for not providing cursory statements of prosecution witnesses to the accused was erroneous. The Court of Session had no power to dismiss a complaint solely for this reason. The case was remanded for a fresh decision.

2012 SCMR 1533 Supreme Court

• Appellant: Habibullah
• Opponent: Abdul Manan
• Sections: Preamble & 3 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was applicable only to individuals with credentials or antecedents of being part of a Qabza group involved in illegal activities. The Act targeted land grabbers and land mafia.

2012 MLD 1652 Peshawar High Court

• Appellant: Walifa Jana
• Opponent: Rahim Jan
• Sections: 3 & 4 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005)
• Summary: For a case to fall under the purview of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, certain requirements needed to be examined: the property must be immovable, the person must be the owner or in lawful possession, the accused must have entered unlawfully, and the entry must have been with the intention to dispossess, grab, control, or occupy.

2012 YLR 2004 Peshawar High Court

• Appellant: Shahzada Khan
• Opponent: Badar Islam
• Sections: Preamble, 3, 4 & 7 (Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005), Article 199 (Constitution of Pakistan)
• Summary: The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, aimed to provide remedies to those illegally and forcibly dispossessed by land grabbers or land mafia. Disputes between co-sharers or parties with valid claims didn’t necessarily fall under the Act’s scope. This dispute, without evidence of illegal and forcible dispossession, was deemed of a civil nature.

2012 MLD 1652 Peshawar High Court

This citation emphasizes the requirements that a court needs to examine for the purpose of attracting Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court must assess whether the property is immovable, the person is the owner or in lawful possession, the accused entered unlawfully, and such entry was with the intention to dispossess, grab, control, or occupy.

2012 PCrLJ 581 Lahore High Court Lahore

In this case, the complainant claimed to be the widow of the owner of a disputed property. The complainant’s complaint seemed to involve a civil dispute regarding property ownership. The court opined that the complainant should pursue civil remedies to restore her ownership rather than using the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The complainant’s absence during proceedings and the respondents’ possession through legal means were noted. The court concluded that the case was more suited for civil litigation.

2012 PCrLJ 581 Lahore High Court Lahore

This citation deals with the maintainability of a second complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The complainant filed a second complaint after the first one was dismissed due to her non-appearance, resulting in the acquittal of the accused. The court noted that the Trial Court had the authority to dismiss a complaint due to the complainant’s non-appearance and that the offence  was non-cognizable. The court found no jurisdictional infirmities to warrant interference.

2012 PCrLJ 52 Karachi High Court Sindh

The case revolved around the question of illegal dispossession. The complainant claimed to have handed over possession of a plot to the respondent, who was later in possession of the property. The court noted that the respondent who received lawful possession couldn’t be accused of illegal dispossession. The court also mentioned ongoing civil litigation and suggested that the complainant wait for the results of the civil case.

2012 PCrLJ 581 Lahore High Court Lahore

This citation highlights the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. It clarifies that the Act targets intruders known as “property grabbers” or “Qabza Groups” who forcibly take possession of immovable property. The Act’s contents and objectives apply only to those with credentials or antecedents as property grabbers or members of such groups.

2012 MLD 371 Karachi High Court Sindh

This case involves the grant of an interim injunction under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The plaintiff obtained temporary possession through a criminal complaint but concealed the fact that he was not lawfully in possession of the property. The court noted that the plaintiff didn’t have a prima facie case and declined to grant the interim injunction. The plaintiff’s lack of transparency affected the court’s decision.

In the case of Mst. Neelam Parveen v. State was brought before the Lahore High Court. In this case, the court emphasized that the second complaint could only be filed when the proceedings were in their initial stage, requiring the complainant to establish the genuineness of the allegations to summon the accused for trial. The court highlighted that the Trial Court had the jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint after summoning the accused, and the proper remedy for the complainant in case of acquittal was to file an appeal under Section 417(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), rather than filing a second complaint on the same matter.

MUHAMMAD BASHIR v. State

Citation: 2011 PCrLJ 1510 (Lahore High Court)

The Lahore High Court considered the cancellation of bail under the Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005), emphasizing that bail could be cancelled if granted capriciously, without valid reasons, or if the accused attempted to tamper with evidence, threatened witnesses, or absconded after bail. The court clarified that the High Court had the authority to entertain an application for bail cancellation under S. 497(5) of the Cr.P.C., especially if the bail order was without jurisdiction. The court dismissed the petition for cancellation of bail due to the absence of sufficient evidence supporting the contention that accused attempted to tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses. While some aspects of the bail order were well-founded, the characterization of the offence  as bailable was not conclusive, and any findings at the bail stage were tentative and wouldn’t affect the trial.

Syed AKBAR SHAH v. MOOSO

Citation: 2011 PCrLJ 1613 (Karachi High Court)

The Karachi High Court examined an appeal against the acquittal of respondents accused of illegal occupation of land. The court noted that the complainant’s admission of selling portions of the land to the accused through a registered sale-deed and agreement weakened the claim of illegal possession. The court emphasized that the Trial Court’s acquittal decision should be respected, especially if it is reasonable. The court cautioned against interference with acquittal orders and upheld the Trial Court’s acquittal due to the complainant’s failure to prove illegal dispossession.

NASRULLAH v. State

Citation: 2011 SCMR 549 (Supreme Court)

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in a case involving the conviction under S. 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act (2005). The case raised questions about the jurisdiction of appeals and revisions under the Act, the definition of land grabbers, and the sufficiency of evidence. The court examined whether the complainant had proven her case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, considering various aspects of the case.

NABI BUX v. State

Citation: 2011 PCrLJ 1300 (Karachi High Court)

The Karachi High Court addressed an appeal against acquittal under the Illegal Dispossession Act. The court found the Trial Court’s order vague and unclear regarding possession. It highlighted that mere declaration of entitlement to possession was insufficient without proper restoration mechanisms. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of S. 8(2) for Police assistance in restoration of possession. The Trial Court’s judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded for a speaking order.

WAQAR ALI v. THE STATE

Citation: 2011 PLD 181 (Supreme Court)

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the jurisdictional aspects of the Trial Court’s assumption of jurisdiction under the Illegal Dispossession Act (2005).

Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM v. Sirdar AHMAD NAWAZ SUKHERA

Citation: 2011 YLR 647 (Lahore High Court)

The Lahore High Court considered the objectives of the Illegal Dispossession Act (2005), noting its application to property grabbers or “qabza group.” The court dismissed the petition as the accused was the owner of the disputed land and did not fit the profile of a property grabber or qabza group member.

In 2011 PCrLJ 1300 (Karachi High Court – Sindh), the Court discussed the purpose of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. It emphasized that the Act was designed to safeguard lawful owners and occupants of properties from illegal or forcible dispossession. The provisions of Section 3 were analyzed to establish the elements of the offence , which include the ownership or lawful possession of the property, unlawful entry, and intention to dispossess, grab, control, or occupy the property. The Court reiterated that the Act’s purpose was to provide speedy justice and deter criminal activities related to illegal dispossession.

The case 2011 PLD 179 (Lahore High Court – Lahore) dealt with the maintainability of a constitutional petition against the acquittal of accused individuals under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court discussed the absence of a specific provision for the right of appeal under the Act but acknowledged the presumption that a right of appeal is part of a statute even if not explicitly mentioned. The Court concluded that the absence of a right of appeal under the Act did not bar the filing of a constitutional petition against an acquittal.

In 2011 PLD 181 (Supreme Court), the Court examined whether the assumption of jurisdiction by a Trial Court was violative of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The case highlighted the importance of scrutinizing complaints and ensuring that they show the existence of all necessary elements of the alleged offence  before proceeding with legal action.

Additionally, 2011 PCrLJ 1510 (Lahore High Court – Lahore) discussed the cancellation of bail in cases under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court emphasized the grounds for canceling bail, including threats to witnesses, tampering with evidence, and absconding after bail grant. The Court clarified that any finding or observation made at the bail stage was of a tentative nature and wouldn’t impact the trial itself.

2011 PLD 76 (Quetta High Court – Balochistan): This case centers on the interpretation of the elements of the offence  under Section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court examined the difference between illegal possession and mere encroachment. It held that the act of encroachment, in itself, does not necessarily imply the intention to grab property, which is a key element under the Act. The Court concluded that the accused could not be held criminally liable solely for encroachment without the intent to grab the property.

2011 YLR 296 (Lahore High Court – Lahore): This case delves into the issue of whether a complainant must provide documentary evidence of possession before filing a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court held that the oral assertion of the complainant’s possession could not be the sole basis for entertaining a complaint. It emphasized that the complainant should substantiate their claim with evidence of possession before invoking the Act.

2011 YLR 647 (Lahore High Court – Lahore): The Court in this case discussed the applicability of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, specifically to property grabbers or “qabza groups.” It highlighted that the Act’s provisions are meant to target individuals with a history of illegal possession activities. The case underlines that the Act does not apply to individuals without credentials as property grabbers or members of land mafias.

2011 PLD 86 (Peshawar High Court): This case addressed the question of whether the right of appeal provided under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, was available for cases under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court discussed the absence of a specific right of appeal under the Act and concluded that the legislature intentionally excluded such a provision to expedite justice and suppress grave mischief caused by property grabbers. It recommended the amendment of the Act to include a right of appeal against final judgments of Trial Courts.

2011 YLR 979 (Lahore High Court – Lahore): The Court in this case examined the scope of interim relief under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. It emphasized that the purpose of granting interim relief was to provide speedy justice during the trial process. The Court highlighted that the court must form a prima facie opinion that the accused was not in lawful possession, allowing for interim relief under the Act.

2011 PLD 624 (Karachi High Court – Sindh): This case addressed the distinction between criminal and civil proceedings related to the same property. It underscored that the same act could be both a criminal offence  and a civil wrong. The Court clarified that the absence of establishing a criminal offence  did not preclude civil proceedings from being pursued independently.

2011 YLR 2226 (Karachi High Court – Sindh): This case involves the issue of appeal against acquittal under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appellant alleged that she and her son were forcibly and illegally dispossessed from their land by the respondents with the help of four other men. However, the Court noted that the application lacked specific allegations against the other men involved in the dispossession. The Court concluded that the grounds raised in the appeal were general and did not establish the elements of the offence  under Section 3 of the Act. The Court advised the appellant to pursue civil litigation for the ownership dispute.

2010 PLD 181 (Supreme Court): The Supreme Court discussed the importance of proper exercise of power by courts to take cognizance of a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court emphasized the need for sensitivity towards the difficulties faced by accused persons in criminal trials, with the aim of avoiding or mitigating those difficulties through proper exercise of jurisdiction.

2010 PLD 725 (Supreme Court): This case dealt with the interpretation of the terms “grab,” “control,” or “occupy” as used in Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court clarified that these terms should not be restricted to occupants who entered premises after the promulgation of the Act. Instead, all cases of illegal and unauthorized occupants, except those pending before other forums, would be subject to the Act.

2010 YLR 2383 (Lahore High Court – Lahore): The Lahore High Court discussed the principle of interference in cases involving special laws, using the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, as an example. The Court emphasized that special laws are enacted for specific purposes, and therefore, the process and provisions of these laws should be respected.

2010 MLD 1644 (Lahore High Court – Lahore): This case revolves around the acquittal of accused individuals during a trial under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The petitioners claimed to have purchased a plot of land and possessed it for two decades. The complainant alleged illegal dispossession. The Court determined that the evidence submitted by police and revenue officials was insufficient to establish ownership of the disputed plot. The Court concluded that the controversy over ownership needed to be resolved by the Trial Court before considering the plea of the accused for acquittal.

2010 PLD 661 (Supreme Court): This case involves an appeal against the acquittal of respondents under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The petitioner had filed a complaint against the respondents for allegedly forcibly dispossessing him from a piece of land. The Trial Court acquitted the respondents, stating that they were co-sharers and owners in possession of the land. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal and concluded that the petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the respondents were part of a qabza group or land mafia. The Court deemed the petitioner’s use of the criminal law process to transform a civil dispute into a criminal case an abuse of process.

2010 SCMR 1254 (Supreme Court): This case revolves around the interpretation of terms like “dispossess,” “grab,” “control,” and “occupy” as used in Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court discussed the conditions that need to be satisfied for the provisions of the Act to apply. The Court highlighted that if an individual unlawfully controls or holds possession of a property at the time of the Act’s enactment, they would come under the Act’s ambit. It was noted that a complaint can be filed against such a person by the owner or occupier of the property.

2010 PCrLJ 1334 (Lahore High Court – Lahore): This case involves an intra-court appeal related to an interim order passed under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appellant challenged an order that directed the respondent to be put in possession of a disputed property. The Court upheld the order and stated that the appellant had not filed the constitutional petition with clean hands, as they violated the court’s order and sought relief under constitutional jurisdiction improperly.

2010 YLR 3161 (Lahore High Court – Lahore): This case deals with an application filed by accused individuals under Section 265-K of the Criminal Procedure Code in a private complaint instituted under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The application was dismissed by the Trial Court. The Court held that a second complaint related to the same subject could be filed as long as the earlier complaint had not been decided on its merits. The Court emphasized that civil litigation between the parties does not bar parallel criminal proceedings under the Act.

2010 PLD 661 (Supreme Court):

In this case, the petitioner filed a complaint against respondents for allegedly forcibly dispossessing him from a land in question. The Trial Court acquitted the respondents on the grounds that they were co-sharers in the land, had a registered sale-deed in their favor, and were shown as owners in possession in the Revenue Record. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that the petitioner failed to establish that the respondents were part of a Qabza group or land mafia. The Court deemed the use of the Illegal Dispossession Act an abuse of process, as the petitioner attempted to convert a genuine civil dispute into a criminal case to gain concessions. The Court refused to interfere with the judgments of the lower courts.

2010 SCMR 1254 (Supreme Court):

This case emphasizes the connotation of words such as ‘dispossess,’ ‘grab,’ ‘control,’ and ‘occupy’ in the context of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court outlines pre-conditions for the act to apply: the property must be immovable, the person claiming dispossession must be the owner or in lawful possession, the accused must have entered the property unlawfully with the intent to dispossess, grab, control, or occupy. If the accused’s actions fall under these definitions, the Act can be invoked, and the property owner can file a complaint.

2010 PCrLJ 1334 (Lahore High Court):

This case involves an intra-court appeal regarding an interim order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court upheld the order, stating that the appellant had violated the order and did not file the constitutional petition with clean hands. It clarified that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is not an appellate jurisdiction and explained the difference between appellate and constitutional jurisdiction.

2010 YLR 3161 (Lahore High Court):

This case pertains to an application filed by accused petitioners under Section 265-K of the Criminal Procedure Code in response to a private complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The application was dismissed by the Trial Court, and the Lahore High Court affirmed this decision. The Court clarified that civil litigation does not bar criminal proceedings initiated under the Act. The complainant had been allegedly dispossessed of his property by the accused persons, and the Court found no reason to interfere with the lower court’s decision.

2010 PLD 725 (Supreme Court):

In this case, the Court upheld the conviction of the accused under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The accused had trespassed onto a plot owned by the complainant during the complainant’s absence. The Court stated that the Act is meant to discourage land grabbers and protect the rights of property owners and lawful occupants. The Court highlighted that the Act applies to those who unlawfully possess property at the time of its enactment and reaffirmed the right of an illegally dispossessed individual to use the Act’s provisions while simultaneously pursuing other remedies.

2010 YLR 495 (Karachi High Court, Sindh):

The Court emphasized that the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, should not be limited only to individuals with antecedents as land grabbers, qabza groups, or land mafia. The Act applies to anyone involved in illegal dispossession, regardless of their affiliations. The Court noted that if a person claims dispossession, they shouldn’t be required to prove that the alleged wrongdoers are part of a specific group. Instead, Section 3 of the Act covers every act of dispossession, irrespective of whether it’s committed individually or in collaboration with others.

2010 SCMR 1254 (Supreme Court):

This citation was already discussed in a previous response, providing insights into the connotation of words like ‘dispossess,’ ‘grab,’ ‘control,’ and ‘occupy’ under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

2010 PCrLJ 268 (Lahore High Court, Lahore):

The Court clarified that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, isn’t solely applicable to habitual land grabbers or qabza groups. Instead, it covers all persons who illegally occupy or possess premises. The Act aims to protect lawful occupants from unauthorized ones. Even if a relative illegally occupies a property, the Act’s provisions can be applied. The Court stressed that all cases of illegal occupancy, without distinction, fall under the Act.

2010 YLR 593 (Peshawar High Court):

The Court highlighted that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is a penal law that should be strictly construed. For the benefit of subsection (1) of Section 3, complainants need to demonstrate that they are lawful owners or occupiers of the property, the accused entered the property unlawfully, their entry lacked lawful authority, and they intended to dispossess, grab, control, or occupy the immovable property.

2010 YLR 2534 (Karachi High Court, Sindh):

In this case, the applicants claimed ownership of a plot and asserted that they took possession through lawful means. However, they alleged that the respondent and their tenant colluded to illegally occupy the flat on the same day the applicants gained possession. The Trial Court dismissed the application under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, without recording the evidence of the accused who illegally occupied the flat. The High Court set aside this order, emphasizing that the Trial Court should have summoned the accused and recorded their statement before making a decision.

2010 PCrLJ 1442 (Lahore High Court, Lahore):

The Court highlighted that the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, extends beyond just curbing illegal activities of land grabbers or habitual offenders. It covers similar land grabbing or snatching activities of individuals, emphasizing that the Act applies to a broader range of illegal dispossession situations.

2010 YLR 930 (Lahore High Court, Lahore):

This case pertains to a constitutional petition in which the petitioners were convicted under Section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The complainant alleged that the petitioners forcibly occupied his property. The Court upheld the conviction, noting that the evidence of prosecution witnesses supported the complainant’s version. The Court also highlighted that the sentence awarded was appropriate and proportionate to the crime committed.

2010 SCMR 1254 (Supreme Court):

This citation was already discussed in a previous response, emphasizing the jurisdiction of the court to examine the question of title in cases related to illegal dispossession.

2010 PCrLJ 286 (Karachi High Court, Sindh):

In this case, the complainant was not an eyewitness to the alleged incident of dispossession from her house. She was informed about the dispossession by her sister. The accused claimed to have purchased the house through a sale agreement and suggested that the complainant filed a false case for financial gain. Witnesses testified that the complainant had removed household items from the house, and the accused had shifted into the disputed property on the same day. The Court acquitted the accused, stating that the complainant’s case lacked sufficient evidence.

2010 PCrLJ 422 (Karachi High Court, Sindh):

This case involved an illegal dispossession from a plot of land. The Court emphasized that the evidence conclusively established the complainant’s ownership of the plot and the accused’s unlawful assumption of possession. The pendency of a civil suit was deemed irrelevant to the proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court reduced the sentence for the accused from ten years’ rigorous imprisonment to three years, considering various factors.

2010 SCMR 1254 (Supreme Court):

This citation was already discussed in previous responses, highlighting the admissibility of the remedy under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, for individuals who have been dispossessed without due process of law.

2010 YLR 1400 (Lahore High Court, Lahore):

The Court addressed the issue of transferring an application for restoration of a case under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, to another court. The applicant sought a transfer due to lack of confidence in the judicial officer. The Court dismissed the application, noting that valid reasons were required for such transfers, and the applicant’s concerns were insufficient to warrant a transfer.

2010 SCMR 1584 (Supreme Court):

In this case, the Court converted a petition for leave to appeal into a criminal appeal. The petitioner sought to convert the non-bailable warrants issued against them into bailable warrants. The Court allowed this conversion, enabling the petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court and seek bail.

2010 PLD 661 (Supreme Court):

This citation was previously discussed in relation to the abuse of process of law when trying to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

2010 MLD 1644 (Lahore High Court, Lahore):

The case involved the acquittal of accused individuals during the trial. The accused claimed to have purchased a plot of land in 1989 and had used it as a cattle-shed for twenty years. The respondent filed a private complaint for illegal dispossession. The Trial Court summoned the accused to face trial. The accused filed an application under Section 265-K of the Criminal Procedure Code, contending that they were owners of the plot based on a court judgment and decree. The Court dismissed the application, stating that the reports submitted by police and revenue officials were vague and sketchy, making it difficult to ascertain the existence of the plot in question. The Court emphasized that the plea for acquittal could not be entertained until the ownership dispute was resolved.

2010 PCrLJ 1046 (Karachi High Court, Sindh):

This citation highlighted the elements of Section 3(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The section defines the ingredients of illegal dispossession, which involve unauthorized entry onto property with the intent to dispossess or control it from the owner or occupier.

2010 PCrLJ 1334 (Lahore High Court, Lahore):

This case concerned an intra-court appeal related to an interim order issued by an Additional Sessions Judge under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The order aimed to put the respondent in possession of a disputed property based on a prima facie lack of lawful possession by the appellant. The Court dismissed the appellant’s constitutional petition against this order, highlighting that constitutional jurisdiction is not an appellate jurisdiction. The Court noted that the order was of an interim nature and that the appellant still had to contest the main case under the Act.

2010 YLR 1982 (Karachi High Court, Sindh):

The Court discussed the nature, object, and scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. It emphasized that the Act aimed to protect the rights of lawful owners and occupants against unauthorized and illegal occupants, covering all cases of illegal occupation. The Act is not limited to land grabbers or qabza groups; it deals with various forms of dispossession.

2010 YLR 1997 (Peshawar High Court):

In this case, the petitioner challenged the dismissal of their complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court observed that the record did not suggest any unlawful and illegal dispossession by the respondent. The petitioner had taken possession of the property a few days before the complaint and alleged dispossession without specific evidence. The Court emphasized the need for positive evidence of lawful ownership and possession for a case under the Act.

2010 PCrLJ 1265 (Karachi High Court, Sindh):

The case discussed the most essential ingredient of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. It emphasized that the Act applies when there is dispossession of the owner or occupier of the property. If the complainant does not allege dispossession or forcible occupation by the accused, the provisions of the Act wouldn’t be applicable. In this case, the complainant’s complaint did not disclose any incident of dispossession, and the accused presented evidence of being in possession of the property prior to the complainant’s inheritance. The Court concluded that the Act’s provisions were not attracted, and the complaint was rightly dismissed.

2010 YLR 2864 (Karachi High Court, Sindh):

The case revolved around a situation where the respondent claimed to have purchased a plot from the applicant and had pending civil proceedings seeking specific performance of the sale agreement. The Court highlighted that the criminal court had no jurisdiction to determine the effect of the civil document. The continuation of criminal proceedings during pending civil proceedings could adversely affect the respondent’s interest, and the Court upheld the impugned order.

2010 YLR 1697 (Karachi High Court, Sindh):

In an appeal against acquittal, the Court emphasized that accused individuals cannot be tried or punished twice for the same alleged incident. The case involved a dispute between brothers and sisters over property ownership. The Court observed that the dispute was already sub judice before a civil court, and the rights of parties regarding ownership and possession should be determined in that suit. The Trial Court rightly exercised discretion to dismiss the appeal.

2010 YLR 1982 (Karachi High Court, Sindh) (Previously discussed in detail):

The case reiterated the nature, object, and scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, emphasizing that it covers all cases of illegal occupation without distinction.

2010 YLR 1982 (Karachi High Court, Sindh):

In this case, the Trial Court had dismissed the complaint on the basis of a Mukhtiarkar’s certificate without considering the merits. The High Court highlighted that the Trial Court’s observation was incorrect and contrary to the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court emphasized that the Trial Court’s duty was to decide the matter on its merits, rather than assuming that the matter should be dealt with by a civil court. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Trial Court to decide the complaint on its merits.

2010 SCMR 1584 (Supreme Court):

The case involved the issuance of non-bailable warrants in an illegal dispossession case. The Supreme Court converted the petition for leave to appeal into a criminal appeal and modified the non-bailable warrants to bailable warrants. The Court acknowledged that the harsh action of issuing non-bailable warrants had caused prejudice to the petitioners, who were willing to face proceedings. The Court’s decision allowed the petitioners to surrender before the Trial Court and seek bail through proper applications.

2010 PCrLJ 666 (Quetta High Court, Balochistan):

The appellant had appealed against the acquittal of the respondent in a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court found that the appellant had fully proved his dispossession from the land by the accused through oral evidence and judgments. The Trial Court’s failure to consider these factors was deemed an illegality, and the impugned judgment was set aside. The accused was convicted under the Act, and police authorities were directed to put the complainant in possession of the land.

2010 PCrLJ 422 (Karachi High Court, Sindh):

The case discussed evidence brought on record, which conclusively proved the complainant’s lawful ownership and the accused’s illegal possession. The Court highlighted that even with pending civil litigation, the illegal dispossession provisions were still applicable. Omission in the accused’s statement under S.342 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding prosecution documents was considered a mere irregularity. The accused’s conviction was upheld, but the sentence was reduced due to specific circumstances.

2010 MLD 1920 (Karachi High Court, Sindh):

The case emphasized the distinct scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which provides an alternate and efficacious remedy for parties seeking entitlement and possession over property. The Act aims to curb land mafia and protect lawful owners and occupiers from illegal dispossession. The Court highlighted the procedure of taking cognizance, special investigation, day-to-day trial, and interim orders of attachment as provided by the Act.

2010 MLD 1920 (Karachi High Court, Sindh):

The complainant’s application under S.7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was allowed by the Trial Court, directing the accused to hand over possession within 7 days. The Court found that the complainant had made a prima facie case supported by title documents, creating a presumption of ownership and possession. The accused failed to produce valid evidence, and the Trial Court’s interim order was upheld as being subject to the final decision under S.8 of the Act.

2010 MLD 100 (Peshawar High Court):

The petitioners challenged the Trial Court’s order taking cognizance of the complaint under S.3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The High Court held that the petition was premature as the impugned order was not final. The Trial Court was mandated to decide the complaint on merits in accordance with the Act. The Court emphasized the Act’s special nature and dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

2010 YLR 2383 (Lahore High Court, Lahore):

The appellant challenged the Additional Sessions Judge’s decision in a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, claiming that the dispute should be resolved by the civil court. The Court held that the Act’s procedure should be followed as it was a special law, and it dismissed the constitutional petition.

2010 YLR 2139 (Quetta High Court, Balochistan):

The case involved withdrawal of a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Trial Court allowed the withdrawal, but the High Court set aside the order, emphasizing that the Act’s procedure should be followed. The Court found the complaint should continue and upheld the attachment order.

2010 YLR 1969 (Quetta High Court, Balochistan):

The Court clarified that the expression “grab,” “control,” or “occupy” in S.3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, should not be limited to post-Act occupants. It applies to all cases of illegal and unauthorized occupants except those pending before other forums.

2010 PLD 725 (Supreme Court):

The Supreme Court clarified that the Act applies to all cases of illegal possession, regardless of whether the occupation occurred before or after the Act’s promulgation.

2010 PCrLJ 666 (Quetta High Court, Balochistan):

In this appeal against acquittal, the Court held that the complainant had proved dispossession through oral evidence and judgments, and the Trial Court’s non-appreciation of evidence was an illegality. The accused was convicted under the Act, and police were directed to put the complainant back in possession.

2010 MLD 503 (Karachi High Court, Sindh):

The Court dealt with a situation where a tenant alleged eviction during a rent appeal’s pendency and filed a contempt application and complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court emphasized the importance of proper procedure and staying the complaint proceedings until the rent appeal and contempt case were decided.

In the case of Sheikh Muhammad Nafees vs. Additional Sessions Judge, Hafizabad (2010 PCrLJ 1442 Lahore High Court Lahore), the petitioner was dispossessed of land inherited from his father. Revenue authorities found respondents in illegal possession and ordered them to deliver possession to the petitioner under West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968. However, respondents demolished structures and took over possession illegally. Petitioner filed a complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, despite a pending civil suit. The court held that pendency of a civil suit was not a bar to initiating criminal proceedings. The act covered similar land grabbing activities by individuals. Evidence showed petitioner’s lawful ownership and transgression by respondents. The complaint was allowed, and the judgment dismissing it was set aside. The Trial Court was directed to decide the complaint expeditiously.

In the case of Mst. Rukhsat Bano vs. Ghulam Hussain (2010 YLR 77 Karachi High Court Sindh), the court quashed an order dismissing an application under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The applicants’ allotment was suspended, allegedly falling outside the Act’s ambit. However, the court ruled that the applicants’ allotment had been suspended without proper notice. The court set aside the order and directed the Trial Court to take cognizance against the respondents as per law.

In Mst. Zahida Nasreen vs. Additional Sessions Judge, District Sahiwal (2010 PCrLJ 575 Lahore High Court Lahore), the petitioner filed a complaint under S.3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Trial Court acquitted the respondents based on a pending civil suit between co-owners. The court found S.3 applicable beyond habitual land grabbers and that evidence supported the petitioner’s claim. The court allowed the constitutional petition, set aside the dismissal of the complaint, and directed expedited consideration.

The case of Muhammad Bakhsh vs. Additional Sessions Judge (2010 PCrLJ 268 Lahore High Court Lahore) clarified that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, applies to all illegal occupants. If evidence supports trial initiation, the Act applies even if the property was taken by a relative. The Act aims to protect lawful occupants from illegal possessors.

In Mrs. Mehmooda Aftab vs. Marghoob Hussain (2010 MLD 503 Karachi High Court Sindh), the tenant was evicted during a rent appeal’s pendency, allegedly violating a stay order. The court directed the Appellate Court to first decide on the stay order’s communication to the landlord before addressing the contempt application and Illegal Dispossession Act complaint.

In Mst. Khatoon vs. Muhammad Saleem (2010 PCrLJ 1046 Karachi High Court Sindh), the court defined the elements of S.3(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, involving unauthorized entry with intent to dispossess the owner.

In Haji Asghar Ali vs. Muhammad Nawaz Nerejo (2010 YLR 783 Karachi High Court Sindh), a non-member’s transfer of a plot was protected by the Co-operative Societies Act. The court remanded the case for further consideration.

In Fazal Ahmed vs. Arif Anwar Saeed (2010 SCMR 1584 Supreme Court), non-bailable warrants’ conversion to bailable ones was ordered to enable surrender and proper legal proceedings.

In Farhat Abbas Shah vs. Khuda Bakhsh (2009 PCrLJ 864 Lahore High Court Lahore), the court upheld the Trial Court’s admission of a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, against the petitioner.

In Mst. Rukhsat Bano v. Ghulam Hussain (2010 YLR 77), the court held that the Act covers cases of illegal dispossession without any distinction and clarified that the Act’s applicability is not limited to specific groups or types of dispossession. This emphasizes that the Act’s primary focus is to prevent illegal possession of property, irrespective of the nature of the parties involved.

Similarly, in Mst. Zahida Nasreen v. Additional Sessions Judge, District Sahiwal (2010 PCrLJ 575), the court emphasized that the Act’s provisions aren’t exclusive to habitual land grabbers or qabza groups, but extend to all cases of illegal occupation or possession, even if involving individual disputes between co-owners. This highlights the comprehensive coverage of the Act.

Additionally, the cases address procedural aspects. For instance, in Haji Asghar Ali v. Muhammad Nawaz Nerejo (2010 YLR 783), the court noted that while the Act is intended to provide interim relief against illegal dispossession, such relief can be granted only after the charge is framed, not before.

Furthermore, the courts have deliberated on the Act’s retrospective effect.

In Dr. Muhammad Safdar v. Edward Henry Louis (2009 PLD 404), the court clarified that the Act is not intended to have retrospective operation and cannot be invoked ex post facto. This aligns with the principle that laws with retrospective punishments are prohibited by the Constitution.

Sardar Shah Nawaz Khan v. Malki Aman (2009 PCrLJ 578) emphasizes that the Act’s purpose is to protect the rights of lawful property owners, and it highlights the necessity for the Trial Court to make well-considered decisions, ensuring that remedies are provided to the rightful owners and unlawful occupants are not favored.

 Habibullah v. State (2009 MLD 1162) discusses the intricacies of restoration of possession. It clarifies that restoration orders can be granted as interim measures during the trial under Section 7 or at the time of punishment under Section 8 of the Act. It underscores that such orders are subject to the final outcome of the trial.

Edward Henry Louis v. Dr. Mutammad Safdar (2009 PCrLJ 1359) underscores the importance of cautious application of the Act’s provisions, especially regarding interim relief. It highlights that the power to grant interim relief under Section 7(1) of the Act should be exercised after framing charges, not before, to ensure a well-founded decision.

Habibullah v. State (2009 MLD 1162) and Sharmila Farooqui v. State (2009 MLD 850) delve into procedural aspects, discussing the process for bringing complaints on record and the availability of appeal and revision options. They stress that the Criminal Procedure Code’s provisions on appeal and revision apply to proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, allowing for higher court oversight and ensuring justice.

In Taj Muhammad v. Muhammad Anwar (2009 YLR 559), the case introduces the possibility of compromise in cases related to illegal possession. It demonstrates that parties involved can mutually agree on resolutions that may lead to leniency in sentencing based on reconciliation.

The case, Chaman Aslam v. Muhammad Aurangzeb (2009 YLR 1449) highlights the criteria for the production of further evidence in court proceedings. It establishes that strong reasons for not presenting evidence earlier must be provided, and the party seeking to introduce additional evidence must adhere to proper procedure.

Nisar Ahmed v. State (2009 PCrLJ 9) touches upon the proper role of the Trial Court and the impact of external influence on the judicial process. It emphasizes that the Trial Court should carefully examine the facts before making a decision and should not be swayed by external factors such as interference by Area Nazim.

Haji Taj Din v. Sh. Mujib Ullah (2009 PCrLJ 864) delves into the concurrent remedies available to a person who has been dispossessed from their property. It clarifies that various legal avenues, both civil and criminal, can be pursued simultaneously to seek redress. The case underscores that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, provides a unique and speedy remedy to counter land grabbing and safeguard the rights of lawful occupants.

Chaman Aslam v. Muhammad Aurangzeb (2009 YLR 1449) explores the criteria for producing further evidence in court proceedings. It emphasizes that parties wishing to introduce additional evidence must provide strong reasons for not presenting it earlier. The case underscores the importance of adhering to proper procedural guidelines in such situations.

Muhammad Arshad Bhatti v. Muhammad Bux (2009 YLR 1507) highlights the distinction between disputes of a civil nature and cases of illegal dispossession. It clarifies that even if a dispute involves property, it doesn’t necessarily mean it falls within the realm of a civil dispute. The case emphasizes that the nature of the dispute and the circumstances of illegal dispossession need to be carefully considered.

Mian Bahadur Jan v. State (2009 PLD 70) clarifies the powers of the court under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. It underscores that the Act provides new powers to the existing Sessions Courts and does not establish a separate “Special Court” for its implementation.

Nisar Ahmed v. State (2009 PCrLJ 9) emphasizes the importance of a Trial Court’s thorough examination of facts rather than relying solely on an inquiry report from a biased source. The case highlights the negative impact of external interference on the administration of justice.

Ali Ghulam Laghari v. Chaudhary Muhammad Aslam Gill (2009 YLR 1252) underscores that the jurisdiction under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 can only be invoked by the owner or lawful occupier of the property who has been dispossessed without lawful authority. The case clarifies that mere claimants without proper ownership or occupation cannot maintain applications under this Act.

Abdul Bari v. State (2008 PLD 400) emphasizes the proper application of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 in disputes over possession. The case stresses that if a dispute involves issues of illegal occupation or dispossession, it should be addressed under the Act’s provisions rather than being dismissed as a matter of civil nature.

Muhammad Arshad v. Sultan Murree (2008 MLD 1654) highlights that only lawful owners or occupiers can seek protection under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The case clarifies that being a landowner does not necessarily grant legal possession over a specific property.

Fazal Karim v. State (2008 YLR 462) addresses the limitations of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 in cases involving co-sharers and ongoing civil disputes. The case underscores that this Act is not applicable when possession disputes involve co-sharers and are already being regulated by civil court orders.

Siddiqui Fund Trust v. The IVth Additional Sessions Judge (2008 MLD 1672) discusses the rights of tenants and the authority of owners to regulate construction on their property. The case clarifies that a tenant cannot make unauthorized constructions without the owner’s approval.

Shafi Muhammad v. State (2008 PLD 480) highlights the significance of registered documents and the court’s role in determining ownership and possession disputes. The case underscores the retrospective application of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 to counter land grabbing and illegal possession.

Anjum Jillani v. Mst. Feroza Jillani (2008 YLR 2280) shows how a compromise can lead to the acquittal of accused individuals, even in cases involving illegal dispossession. The court emphasizes the importance of parties reaching an agreement and forgiving each other.

Kamal-ud-Din v. Fakhr-ud-Din (2008 MLD 1048) underscores the role of evidence and procedure in illegal dispossession cases. The case clarifies that evidence such as revenue records and possession can impact the outcome of such cases.

Sahib Khan v. Saadullah Khan (2008 PLD 49) highlights the interplay between the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case underscores that while the Criminal Procedure Code is applicable, the special provisions of the Act must also be considered.

Mansab Ali v. Suleman (2008 PCrLJ 199) emphasizes the relationship between withdrawal of a complaint and interim relief. In this case, the appellant withdrew the complaint after obtaining interim possession. The High Court restored possession to the respondents, emphasizing that if the main case is withdrawn, there’s no basis for interim relief granted on the basis of the pending case.

Rana Shafique Ahmad v. Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore (2008 YLR 2259) clarifies the primary objective of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Act aims to protect lawful owners and occupiers from illegal or forcible dispossession and prevent such dispossession through illegal means. It’s important to note that the Act is not intended to decide ownership disputes, which are within the purview of civil courts.

Naseer Ahmed v. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jhelum (2008 PCrLJ 1124) highlights the boundaries of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The complaint in this case was dismissed as the respondents were not alleged to have illegally occupied the petitioner’s property. The case underscores that the Act is applicable when there’s actual dispossession from property owned and possessed by the complainant.

Nazir Ahmed v. Asif (2008 PLD 94) emphasizes the need for proper evidence to establish entitlement to possession. The petitioner’s claim of lawful occupation lacked supporting documents, and as a result, the case was dismissed for lack of evidence.

Nasir Nawab Khan v. Mst. Kausar Naz (2008 PLD 421) highlights the significance of due process and hearing in illegal dispossession cases. The High Court recognized that orders related to possession should be passed after hearing both parties, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal principles.

Aziz Ahmad v. Mumrez (2008 PLD 104) clarifies the availability of remedies in cases involving illegal dispossession. The court underscores that while the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is applicable, other remedies like those under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 can also be pursued.

Illegal Dispossession Act’s Objective (2008 YLR 2259) reaffirms the primary purpose of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005—to protect lawful owners and occupiers from unlawful dispossession, without determining ownership disputes.

Quashing of Judgment and Order (2008 PLD 104) discusses the limitations of the court’s inherent jurisdiction (S.561-A, Cr.P.C.) when it comes to quashing orders of acquittal. The case clarifies that a separate remedy of appeal (S.417(2), Cr.P.C.) exists against orders of acquittal, and the inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent this established appellate procedure.

Jalal v. Kapri Khan (2008 PLD 369) highlights the compatibility of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 with ongoing civil suits. The Act allows complainants to initiate proceedings even if a civil suit is pending, as long as they have been unlawfully dispossessed.

Ashiq Hussain v. Athar Sher (2008 PCrLJ 719) establishes the commencement of a trial as a prerequisite for passing an order under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. In this case, since the accused were not summoned and no charge was framed, the conditions necessary for invoking Section 7 were not met, rendering the order without lawful authority.

Iftikhar Ahmad v. Zulfiqar Ali (2008 PLD 59) reiterates the comprehensive scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The case emphasizes that the Act applies to all cases of illegal occupants, except those already pending before other forums. This ruling ensures that the Act’s provisions can be invoked to address various instances of illegal dispossession.

Rana Shafique Ahmad v. Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore (2008 YLR 2259) addresses the interplay between civil suits and the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. This case clarifies that pursuing proceedings under the Act does not impact ongoing civil suits. The Act can still be invoked to address the issue of illegal dispossession.

Nazir Ahmed v. Asif (2008 PLD 94) underscores the importance of providing evidence and documents to support claims of lawful occupation or ownership under the Act. In the absence of such proof, claims of entitlement may not be upheld by the courts.

Illegal Dispossession Act’s Scope (2008 PLD 59) reaffirms the wide-ranging applicability of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Act covers all cases of illegal occupants, except those that are already being considered by other forums.

Samandar Khan v. Haji Abdul Rehman (2008 PLD 21) highlights the limited applicability of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 in cases involving disputes among legal heirs. In such situations, where the conflict pertains to civil rights and property partition, the Act may not be suitable for addressing the matter.

Anjum Jillani v. Mst. Feroza Jillani (2008 YLR 2280) highlights the significance of compromise in cases under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The case involved a mother and son, and their compromise led to the acquittal of the accused. The complainant’s forgiveness and the agreed-upon conditions were pivotal in the court’s decision to release the accused.

Malik Muhammad Naeem Awan v. Malik Aleem Majeed (2008 PLD 358) emphasizes the broader applicability of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court clarifies that the Act extends to all persons illegally occupying or possessing premises, not just land grabbers or habitual offenders. In this case, the court emphasizes that the summary of evidence and documents provided by the petitioner warranted further trial, indicating the Act’s inclusive scope.

Extension of Bail under S.381-A (2008 YLR 2280) discusses the provision of bail under Section 381-A of the Criminal Procedure Code in relation to the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court clarifies that the accused, whose sentence is one year, would need to seek leave from the apex court to file a criminal petition for special leave to appeal. The case underscores the specific procedure for bail in cases covered by the Act.

Yafas v. State (2007 PLD 123) delves into the issue of the maintainability of an appeal against conviction under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court concludes that while the Act doesn’t specify a right of appeal, the general principles of criminal justice warrant at least one appeal against any order, especially an order of conviction. Therefore, the remedy would be available under the Criminal Procedure Code, and the appeal would be maintainable.

Abdul Haq v. Additional Sessions Judge, Lodhran (2007 PCRLJ 1347) revolves around the maintainability of a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court emphasizes that the Act applies specifically to dispossession from immovable property by property grabbers, Qabza groups, or the land mafia. The complaint must show a connection to these groups, which was lacking in this case, rendering the complaint not maintainable.

Zahoor Ahmed v. Abdul Aziz (2007 PCRLJ 1881) addresses the jurisdiction and procedure for filing complaints under the Act. The court clarifies that offence s under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, are exclusively triable by the Court of Session. It emphasizes that the use of Magisterial Courts for such cases isn’t appropriate, and the complaint should be directly entertained by the Court of Session.

Haji Farukh Sair v. Inayat Ali Shah (2007 PCRLJ 1297) explores the distinction between criminal and civil matters under the Act. The court highlights that if the dispute is of a civil nature, and the parties are co-sharers or possessors of the disputed property, the Act’s penal provisions might not be applicable.

Sabir Ayyaz v. Gul Rukh Samina (2007 YLR 1657) examines the timing and jurisdiction of passing interim orders under the Act. The court stresses that interim orders can be passed during the trial after the charge has been framed. An interim order passed before the commencement of the trial would lack jurisdiction and could be set aside.

Ch. Muhammad Azam & Co. v. Resham Khan (2007 YLR 3141) involves a situation where the complainant claimed ownership of shops and alleged that the respondent, a member of a Qabza Group, forcibly took possession of those shops. The court considers the timeline of events, including the legal proceedings related to the shops. Ultimately, the court determines that the proceedings before the Trial Court were not competent as a private complaint under S.3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The impugned order is rectified, and possession of the disputed shops is ordered to be handed over to the respondent.

Rahim Tahir v. Ahmed Jan (2007 PCRLJ 1920) explores the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court emphasizes that the court exercising powers under S.3 of the Act is limited to addressing illegal dispossession and isn’t competent to decide on the authenticity of documents or other matters.

Ghulam Muhammad v. Maj. Dr. Waheed Rind (2007 PCRLJ 1878) involves the withdrawal of a civil suit seeking declaration and injunction by the applicant. The court emphasizes that the withdrawal with permission doesn’t create a legal bar against the applicant from pursuing remedies available under the law. The Trial Court’s order disposing of the matter based on the withdrawn civil suit is set aside, and the Trial Court is directed to proceed according to law.

Haji Farukh Sair v. Inayat Ali Shah (2007 PCRLJ 1297) involves a situation where the complainant alleges interference in possession of disputed property but later reached a compromise with the respondents. The court observes that the complaint did not attract the penal provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, as the dispute was of a civil nature and the complainant was not actually dispossessed.

Jan Pervez v. Haji Fazal Hussain (2007 PLD 179) explores the retrospective effect of enhanced punishment provided under S.3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court discusses the application of Art.12(1) of the Constitution, and if the enhanced punishment under the Act is considered part of the law relating to punishment for criminal trespass, it might be impacted by the constitutional provision.

Nazir Ahmad Khan v. Tanveer Ahmad (2007 YLR 2236) emphasizes that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is not designed to apply to ordinary cases of dispossession from immovable property where the aggrieved person has remedies available before civil or revenue courts. The Act is meant to address cases involving an organized or calculated effort to grab property by force or deceit.

Rahim Tahir v. Ahmed Jan (2007 PLD 179) discusses the expressions “to grab, to control or to occupy” used in the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court highlights that the Act’s provisions are intended to curb illegal activities of land grabbing mafias. However, the court also emphasizes that the Act should not be used in ordinary cases of dispossession that fall within the ambit of civil disputes, which can be addressed under the Specific Relief Act, 1877.

Rahim Tahir v. Ahmed Jan (2007 PLD 423) emphasizes that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is a special enactment designed to discourage land grabbers and protect the rights of property owners and lawful occupants. It applies to all cases of illegal occupants except those already pending before other forums.

Muhammad alias Mahamand v. Rana Abdul Qayyum (2007 MLD 815) deals with a constitutional petition related to the application of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court emphasizes that the Act is enacted to bring property grabbers to justice, and for the Act to apply, the complainant must assert that the accused is a property grabber or belongs to a Qabza Group or Land Mafia. If such elements are not present, the Act’s provisions may not be attracted.

Abid v. Additional Sessions Judge (2007 MLD 808) deals with a petitioner who filed a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which was dismissed. The court holds that the petitioner failed to produce evidence that the accused had antecedents of property grabbers or were part of a Qabza Group, which is a requirement for the Act’s applicability. The dispute was deemed a private civil matter and the complaint was correctly dismissed.

Muhammad Ramzan alias Jani v. Muhammad Aslam (2007 PCRLJ 1784) explores the scenario where civil and criminal proceedings were initiated simultaneously. The court holds that there’s no bar for a party to choose between civil suits or criminal proceedings, as both remedies can be availed. The court emphasizes that it needs to protect the rights of individuals and property, and if respondents have encroached on the land with an ulterior motive, the criminal proceedings under the Act can be maintained.

Abdul Haq v. Additional Sessions Judge, Lodhran (2007 PCRLJ 1347) involves a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which was dismissed by the Sessions Court. The court emphasizes that the Act applies to dispossession by property grabbers, Qabza Group, or Land Mafia. The petitioner’s complaint did not establish the respondent’s involvement in any of these categories. Additionally, the petitioner had purchased a share of joint Khata without seeking partition, rendering their complaint not maintainable.

Ghulam Ali v. Nasira Malik (2007 PCRLJ 224) addresses a situation where a complainant was illegally dispossessed from property and filed a complaint under the Act. Revenue records and police reports supported the complaint, but the respondent failed to establish their title. The court dismissed the constitutional petition against the interim order for restoration of possession, emphasizing that interim orders cannot be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction.

Samander Khan v. Haji Abdul Rehman (2007 PLD 72) involves a direct complaint under the Act. The High Court sets aside an order by the District and Sessions Judge, noting that questions of dispossession and property title required evidence and opportunity for both parties to be heard. The court emphasizes that civil and criminal proceedings can run parallel, provided the question of title is determined.

Yafas v. State (2007 PLD 123) involves the applicability of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court emphasizes that for the Act to apply, it needs to be established that the person taking possession did not have a title, used force, took possession without due process of law, and belonged to a group of land grabbers. In this case, the court finds no evidence that the accused used force or belonged to a land grabber group. The court concludes that the Act is not applicable, acquits the accused, and highlights that the complainant can still resort to appropriate legal remedies.

Muhammad Arif v. Additional Sessions Judge (2007 PCRLJ 918) deals with a petitioner who filed a complaint under the Act, which was dismissed by the Sessions Court. The court finds that the agreement to sell, claimed by the accused respondents, was not produced, and the petitioner’s possession was supported by evidence such as electricity bills. The court sets aside the Sessions Court’s judgment, convicts the accused under the Act, and directs them to hand over possession to the petitioner.

Muhammad Ramzan alias Jani v. Muhammad Aslam (2007 PCRLJ 1784) is about initiating civil and criminal proceedings simultaneously. The court emphasizes that no bar exists for parties to choose either remedy, and it’s the court’s duty to protect the rights of individuals and property. The application by the applicant under the Act is maintained, and the court acknowledges that pendency of a civil suit for declaration does not prevent the applicant from pursuing other remedies.

Muhammad Ihsan v. Muhammad Yousaf (2007 MLD 1034) deals with the restoration of interim possession based on a complaint filed by the respondent. The court emphasizes that for the application of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, there should be allegations and proof that the accused belonged to a Qabza Group or Land Mafia. In this case, since no such allegations or proof were provided, the court holds that the Act’s jurisdiction was wrongly assumed, and the order to return possession to the respondent is set aside.

Fazil Khan v. Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot (2006 MLD 1942) involves a petitioner alleging illegal encroachment on a path. The court reviews evidence and concludes that the petitioner was not the owner and lacked lawful possession of the path. As such, the court finds no case under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and dismisses the petition.

Captain S. M. Aslam v. State (2006 PLD 221) addresses the retrospective application of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court emphasizes that the Act cannot punish acts that occurred before its promulgation and that an illegal dispossession before the Act’s enactment cannot be prosecuted under it. The court dismisses the revision petition, upholding the principle against retrospective punishments.

Muhammad Aslam Shami v. Zulfiqar Butt (2006 PLD 680) involves a complaint of illegal dispossession based on a registered sale-deed. The court finds that the complainant did not provide evidence of lawful possession and that the Act’s penal part applies strictly to actions occurring after its enactment. The court dismisses the complaint, noting that other remedies were available under ordinary law.

Sadar Sajjad Haider Khan v. Habibullah Amir (2006 YLR 2686) discusses the application of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, in proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court clarifies that while the special law applies, provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code apply where required. The court emphasizes the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and the competency to entertain complaints under the Act. The court also highlights that complaints under the Act need not be routed through a Magistrate.

Muhammad Younis v. Shahid Cheema (2006 PCRLJ 636) involves the dismissal of a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court finds that the Sessions Court should have referred the matter to the S.H.O. for proper investigation under Section 5(1) of the Act instead of dismissing the complaint summarily. The impugned order is set aside, and the case is remanded for a proper decision according to the provisions of the Act.

PLD 123 Peshawar and PLD 72 Quetta address various aspects of illegal dispossession cases. The Peshawar case emphasizes the points to be established for the application of the Illegal Dispossession Act, including the absence of title, forceful possession, lack of due process, and belonging to a group of land grabbers. In the Quetta case, the High Court sets aside the District and Sessions Judge’s order, directing a proper determination of the matter based on relevant provisions of the law.

PLD 2007 Peshawar 123 discusses the maintainability of an appeal against a conviction under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court concludes that since the Act does not provide a specific right of appeal, the remedy would be available under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.

Tahseen Shaukat v. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Islamabad (2023 YLR 502) addresses the issue of maintaining a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, even when civil litigation is ongoing. The court holds that such a complaint is maintainable, as civil and criminal proceedings can be pursued independently.

2023 YLR 502 Islamabad:

This case emphasizes that a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, remains maintainable even if there is pending civil litigation. It clarifies that a person can be tried under both civil and criminal proceedings independently, without being allowed to evade criminal proceedings by invoking pending civil disputes. The court underscores that the Act is meant to prevent unlawful dispossession, and both types of proceedings can coexist.

2023 YLRN 7 Karachi:

This case deals with an appeal against acquittal. The court upholds the acquittal judgment based on proper reasoning and evidence appraisal. It underscores that when enmity is admitted and evidence lacks corroboration, a conviction cannot be sustained. The importance of proving possession and legal claims in cases of illegal dispossession is highlighted.

2022 PCrLJN 14 Karachi:

The case discusses the applicability of Section 265-K of the Criminal Procedure Code in the context of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. It points out that Section 265-K is not applicable to cases registered upon complaint. Once cognizance has been taken under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, the complaint cannot be dismissed summarily. The court dismisses the revision application based on this understanding.

2022 MLD 1109 Karachi:

This case revolves around the power of the court to acquit the accused at any stage and the application of Section 265-K of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court concludes that Section 265-K is not meant for cases registered upon complaint. Once cognizance has been taken under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, the complaint cannot be dismissed summarily. The application is dismissed in accordance with this interpretation.

2022 MLD 630 Quetta:

The case emphasizes that the basic elements of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, must be met for its provisions to be set in motion. It highlights that cases of civil disputes and cases involving illegal dispossession should be treated differently. In this case, the court determines that the matter pertains to a dispute of a civil nature and not to the illegal dispossession addressed by the Act.

2022 YLRN 65 Karachi:

The case discusses the difference between cases of solitary acts of illegal dispossession and cases involving habitual property grabbers. It emphasizes that the Act is aimed at addressing the latter category of offenders, not resolving all disputes related to dispossession or property title. The Act is specifically designed to address those with a history of property grabbing.

2022 YLRN 174 Islamabad:

The case addresses the maintainability of a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, when civil litigation is pending. It underscores that the Act is applicable only to land grabbers and not intended to settle civil disputes. The court declines to interfere with the Trial Court’s order based on these considerations.

2022 YLR 1696 Islamabad:

The case discusses the nature of illegal dispossession cases and the availability of various remedies, both civil and criminal. It highlights that while disputes over property and dispossession are common, the Act is aimed at addressing cases involving habitual property grabbers and not all instances of property disputes.

2022 PCrLJN 54 Karachi:

The court emphasizes the importance of determining possession and addressing conflicting claims over disputed property. It states that evidence needs to be examined to resolve the crucial point of contention. In this case, the court finds that the Trial Court should have proceeded to record evidence to clarify the possession dispute, and it remands the matter back to the Trial Court for further consideration.

2022 PCrLJN 53 Karachi:

This case underscores the necessity of producing title documents and evidence to support claims in cases of illegal dispossession. The court notes that the complainant failed to produce title documents regarding the property in question. It emphasizes that cases of this nature are essentially civil disputes, and in the absence of sufficient evidence, acquittal is upheld.

2022 PCrLJN 14 Karachi:

The court clarifies the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. It highlights that the court’s role under Section 3 of the Act is limited to determining physical possession and the manner of dispossession, not to establish title, ownership, or document authenticity.

2021 YLRN 147 Karachi:

This case discusses the dismissal of a complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court notes the importance of diligently pursuing legal remedies and finds that the Trial Court had sufficiently addressed the aspects of the case. The court dismisses the revision application, indicating that the impugned judgment was legally sound.

2021 PCrLJ 1476 Quetta:

The case addresses the scope of the Act and the jurisdiction of criminal proceedings in cases of illegal possession. The court finds that the matter pertained to a factual controversy that required thorough inquiry and evidence recording in a civil court. The complaint is dismissed in light of the circumstances.

2021 PCrLJN 66 Karachi:

The court discusses the legal status of an attorney in filing complaints and the limited scope of criminal proceedings for such matters. The court emphasizes that an attorney cannot legally file a criminal complaint and that complaints involving disputed property are essentially civil matters. In this case, the complaint was filed after the expiration of the limitation period, and the court upholds the Trial Court’s dismissal.

2021 YLRN 84 Karachi:

This case involves the issue of illegal dispossession and the requirement for evidence of possession. The court emphasizes that the complainant must establish that they were dispossessed from the property. If a property was already dispossessed before being sold, the proper course is to approach a civil court. The court dismisses the revision petition in this context.

2021 YLR 732 Karachi:

The court addresses the evidence and contradictions in cases of illegal dispossession. The court emphasizes the importance of consistency in witnesses’ statements and the necessity of proving ownership and possession. In cases with material contradictions and discrepancies, the court finds the case doubtful and upholds the acquittal.

2021 PCrLJN 66 Karachi:

This case centers around the delay in filing an appeal and the role of an attorney in criminal complaints. The court emphasizes that an attorney cannot legally file a criminal complaint under such circumstances. The delay in filing the appeal is not reasonably explained, and the court finds that the dispute is of a civil nature, thus directing parties to approach a civil court. The appeal is dismissed.

2021 YLR 2327 Quetta:

This case deals with the principle of double jeopardy and protection against being tried twice for the same offence . The court highlights that a complainant cannot file a complaint under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 if an FIR has already been registered for the same incident. The court accepts the appeal against conviction in light of this principle.

2020 PCrLJN 37 Karachi:

In this case, the court addresses the dismissal of a complaint based on a pending suit for partition and prior dismissal of a similar complaint. The court considers the circumstances and finds that the Trial Court’s cognizance of the offence  was not warranted. The revision against the Trial Court’s order is allowed.

2020 YLR 2331 Karachi:

The case revolves around possession based on a registered deed and whether the dispute falls under the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court emphasizes that disputes over registered documents and possession are better suited for civil actions. The court dismisses the revision application, indicating that a criminal action is not appropriate in this context.

2020 PCrLJ 843 Quetta:

This case focuses on the criteria for applying the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and the conversion of a civil dispute into a criminal offence . The court asserts that the Act is applicable in specific cases and emphasizes that criminal action under the Act is not proper when the dispute is essentially civil. The court dismisses the revision application based on the lack of sufficient material against the accused.

2020 YLR 1317 Karachi:

The court considers a case involving possession based on a registered sale agreement and the application of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court notes that the Act provides a remedy for complaints of illegal possession and dispossession. The court allows the revision application, remanding the case to the Trial Court for further proceedings.

2020 PCrLJN 20 Karachi:

This case addresses the issue of compromise in offence s under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court notes that the Act does not provide a specific provision for compounding the offence  but applies relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. A compromise under the Act is treated as a compromise within the meaning of Section 345 of the Cr.P.C.

2020 YLR 634 Karachi:

In this case, the court examines issues related to encroachment, possession, and the validity of documents. The court finds that the applicants’ claims lack credibility due to fake documents and lack of evidence. The court dismisses the revision application, affirming the decision of the Trial Court.

In the case “2020 YLRN 131 Karachi,” the court upheld the validity of an order under Section 7(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The applicant party had previously filed various civil suits and complaints, which were either dismissed or decreed against them. The court found that the Trial Court’s order was not illegitimate and correctly directed the accused to hand over possession of the disputed plot. The criminal revision was dismissed due to a lack of merits.

In the case “2020 MLD 1138 Karachi,” the case involved allegations of illegal dispossession and the interpretation of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court noted that the complainant had allowed the accused-appellants to reside on the property, suggesting that there was no illegal or wrongful entrance. As a result, the offence  under Section 3(1) of the Act was not established. The conviction was set aside, and the accused were acquitted.

In the case “2020 PLD 8 Karachi,” the case pertained to business partners and their possession of a business property. The court emphasized that partners are generally presumed to be in possession or control of the business. Therefore, the remedy provided by the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was not applicable between partners. The application was dismissed accordingly.

In the case “2019 PCrLJN 116 Karachi,” the court addressed the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appellant claimed ownership of agricultural land through a registered sale deed and alleged illegal occupation by the respondents. The Trial Court acquitted the respondents, but the High Court ruled that every illegal dispossession provides grounds for invoking the jurisdiction of criminal courts under the Act. The judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh judgment.

In the case “2019 PCrLJ 1665 Peshawar,” the matter revolved around encroachment over property. The court highlighted the distinction between illegal dispossession and mere encroachment. The allegation in this case was of encroachment, which lacked the element of intention to grab property. Consequently, the necessary ingredient for an offence  under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was not present, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

In “2019 MLD 1428 Karachi,” the case dealt with the demarcation of property. The Trial Court ordered a Mukhtiarkar to conduct the demarcation, which was considered to be beyond the court’s jurisdiction. The High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous application, finding that the matter should have been resolved through the appropriate civil or revenue court.

The case “2019 YLR 2376 Karachi” involved the Sindh Katchi Abadis Act and the illegal dispossession of government land. The appellant claimed ownership based on various judgments and decrees, but the court found that no notification was issued under Section 19 of the Act. The High Court set aside the Trial Court’s judgment and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the case appeared to be of a civil nature.

In “2019 PCrLJN 116 Karachi,” the appellant claimed ownership of agricultural land and alleged illegal occupation by respondents. The Trial Court acquitted the respondents, but the High Court clarified that every illegal dispossession provides grounds for invoking the jurisdiction of criminal courts under the Act. The case was remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh judgment.

In “2019 PCrLJ 131 Islamabad,” the case continued even after the accused’s death, focusing on the issue of encroachment. The court maintained that the proceedings would continue against the legal heirs of the deceased accused for the illegal possession of disputed land. The revision was allowed, and the court directed restoration of possession to the petitioners.

The case “2018 YLRN 81 Lahore” highlighted the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Act was considered a special law with overriding effect, particularly aimed at combating land grabbers and protecting the rights of owners and occupants. It was clarified that trials under this Act should not be equated with trials under Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

In the case “2018 PCrLJ 1341 Karachi,” the court clarified that proceedings initiated under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 cannot determine the question of ownership of disputed property. Similarly, in “2018 PCrLJN 8 Karachi,” the court emphasized that disputes of a factual and civil nature related to land location and demarcation should be resolved through proper legal channels, rather than falling under the purview of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appeal was allowed, and the complaint was deemed dismissed.

In “2018 YLRN 81 Lahore,” the court reiterated that the trial under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 should not be equated with a complaint under Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Act was designed to combat land grabbers and protect the rights of lawful occupants.

The case “2018 MLD 1969 Peshawar” involved the question of maintainability of a complaint against illegal dispossession. The case was remanded to the Trial Court to decide the question of maintainability through a speaking order.

The “case 2018 PCrLJ 1490 Peshawar” highlighted the purpose and object of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which was aimed at protecting lawful owners and occupants from illegal dispossession and providing a quick remedy for affected parties.

The “case 2018 YLRN 230 Peshawar” emphasized that if the court found that the owner or occupier of the property was illegally dispossessed or property was grabbed in contravention of the Act, it could pass a direction for restoration of the property under Section 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

In “2018 MLD 2089 Peshawar,” the principle of double jeopardy was discussed. It was stated that if the same incident had already been dealt with in an FIR and the respondents were acquitted, subsequent trial on the same allegations under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 would be barred by the principle of double jeopardy.

In the case “2018 PCrLJ 1341 Karachi,” the court reiterated that the proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 cannot determine the question of ownership of disputed property.

In “2018 PCrLJ 1522 Karachi,” the court emphasized that no one could be evicted from a property without due process of law, even if they were considered trespassers. Due process must be followed for any eviction, and even a trespasser cannot be dispossessed without following the proper legal procedures.

In the same case, it was highlighted that a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was dismissed because the dispute appeared to be of a civil nature and lacked allegations connecting the respondent to any qabza group, land mafia, or property grabber. The court emphasized that matters of civil nature should be adjudicated by a civil court of competent jurisdiction rather than the provisions of the Act.

In “2018 YLR 486 Peshawar,” a complainant sought a transfer of complaint due to personal insecurity. The application for transfer was dismissed as the complainant’s claims were mainly based on surmises and conjectures, without evidence of having approached higher officials or the Trial Court for protection.

In “2018 YLRN 390 Karachi,” the court discussed a case where a complainant claimed to be in lawful occupation of a property but faced forceful dispossession by the respondent/father. The court acknowledged that while the complainant had lawful occupation of the property, he should have been given a reasonable notice to vacate the property before any eviction attempt. The court highlighted the importance of avoiding forceful dispossession and encouraged following due process.

In the case “2017 MLD 504 Lahore,” the court discussed the principle of double jeopardy, stating that it applies to the same offence  under the same statute/provisions of law only. The complainant had filed a second private complaint in respect of the same occurrence and same accused, alleging forcible dispossession. The constitutional petition of the complainant was dismissed on this basis.

In “2017 YLR 325 Karachi,” the court upheld the acquittal of the accused, noting that the complainant had already filed a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, and had also lodged an FIR with ulterior motives. The court found that allegations were not supported by medical evidence or independent witnesses.

In the case “2017 MLD 1143 Quetta,” the court emphasized the purpose and scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. It stated that the Act is a special legislation designed to protect lawful owners and occupiers of immovable property from illegal and forcible dispossession by property grabbers.

In “2017 PCrLJN 36 Karachi,” the court allowed an appeal against conviction, noting that the complainant had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Material contradictions and exaggerations in the evidence were found, raising doubt about the truthfulness of the case.

In case  2015 CLC 1555 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN the court ruled that the mere dismissal of a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act does not create any right in favor of the defendant regarding the suit property. Another case (Citation Name: 2015 PCrLJ 1490 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN) involved a dispute over standing crops and the court emphasized the need for specific evidence to establish criminal liability under the Act.

In another instance (Citation Name: 2015 YLR 1892 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE), the court upheld the registration of a criminal case based on allegations of illegal possession and threats made at gunpoint. The court clarified that civil and criminal proceedings can run simultaneously.

However, there have been cases where the courts found insufficient evidence to support the claims made under the Act. For instance, in Citation

In case 2014 PCrLJ 1659 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH, the court emphasized the need for specific details in the complaint and failed to find evidence of illegal dispossession.

In 2015 CLC 1555 Quetta High Court Balochistan, the court examined the effect of the dismissal of a complaint filed under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 on the subsequent filing of a suit for possession. The court held that the mere dismissal of a complaint did not create any right in favor of the defendant regarding the suit property. This case underscores the distinction between the civil and criminal aspects of the issue and emphasizes that different legal considerations apply to each.

Moving on to 2015 PCrLJ 1490 Quetta High Court Balochistan, the court discussed the elements required to establish an offence  under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court found that the complaint failed to establish sufficient evidence to prove an offence  under the Act. The court’s analysis demonstrates the importance of specific evidence and allegations when claiming illegal dispossession under the Act.

In 2015 YLR 1892 Lahore High Court Lahore, the court explored the interplay between criminal and civil proceedings in cases of illegal dispossession. The court emphasized that criminal and civil proceedings can run simultaneously, with the complainant having the right to establish their stance at an appropriate stage of investigation. This case highlights the parallel nature of legal proceedings in cases of property disputes.

In 2014 PCrLJ 1659 Karachi High Court Sindh, the court reviewed the consistency of orders and the necessity for proper assessment of available evidence. The court pointed out the importance of avoiding contradictory findings and the need for proper examination of evidence when dealing with cases of illegal dispossession.

In the case of “ABDUL QAHIR alias SADIQ vs. BIBI AISHA,” as per the citation 2012 PLD 189 Quetta High Court Balochistan, the central issue revolved around the lawful possession of property and the scope of the term “owner” under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The complainant, Bibi Aisha, claimed possession of the property based on ownership documents even though the property was recorded in the name of her deceased husband. The accused, including Abdul Qahir alias Sadiq, contested the complainant’s possession and argued that the documents provided by her were fake and fabricated.

The court addressed the requirement for proving lawful possession, noting that the complainant presented ownership documents while the accused failed to produce any evidence to establish their ownership or occupancy. Despite the complainant not being the recorded owner, Islamic inheritance principles were considered, and it was established that the property’s ownership devolved to her as the heir of her deceased husband. Additionally, even though the complainant was not physically present at the property, her watchman’s presence on her behalf qualified as her possession.

The court also clarified that lodging an FIR did not prohibit the complainant from seeking remedies under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and vice versa. Ultimately, the court upheld the Trial Court’s decision to allow the complainant’s application under Section 7 of the Act, dismissing the accused’s contentions and validating the complainant’s lawful possession and right to maintain a direct complaint.

In “Shaikh MUHAMMAD NASEEM vs. Mst. FARIDA GUL” 2012 MLD 483 Karachi High Court Sindh, the case involved an allegation of illegal dispossession by the applicant, Shaikh Muhammad Naseem. He claimed to be a tenant in the premises and accused Mst. Farida Gul of forcefully occupying the property in his absence. The applicant had filed an FIR which was subsequently cancelled by the Magistrate based on police recommendations under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The applicant then lodged a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, but the Trial Court dismissed the complaint. The court noted that the applicant failed to establish his possession as a tenant and hadn’t challenged his tenancy in any competent court. Consequently, the court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, stating that since the applicant couldn’t prove his possession, the complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act was rightly dismissed.

In the case of “MUJAHID AHMED vs. KHALIL-UR-REHMAN,” according to the citation 2012 YLR 223 Karachi High Court Sindh, the dispute centered around the illegal occupation of a flat. The complainant alleged that his flat had been occupied by the respondents without authorization. However, the respondents contended that they legally acquired the flat through an agreement of sale.

The court examined the evidence and found that the respondents had occupied the flat legally based on valid documents since 2004. The court highlighted that the complainant failed to prove that the flat had been illegally occupied at the time the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 came into force. The court determined that the case did not fall under the provisions of the Act and upheld the impugned order, which had been passed correctly based on the law.

In the case of “ARIFULLAH KHAN vs. HUKAM ZAD KHAN,” as per the citation 2012 MLD 1262 Peshawar High Court, a constitutional petition was filed by Arifullah Khan against Hukam Zad Khan. The petitioner had filed a complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which was dismissed by the Trial Court based on a police inquiry report.

The court discussed the underlying purpose of enacting the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which aimed to curb the activities of property grabbers and land mafia. The petitioner was required to present evidence demonstrating the respondent’s connection to such groups. However, the court found that the petitioner had not met this burden and had been unable to establish that the respondent fell within the criteria specified in the Act. As a result, the constitutional petition was dismissed.

In the case of “Mst. NEELAM PARVEEN vs. State,” based on the citation 2012 PCrLJ 581 Lahore High Court Lahore, the issue pertained to the maintainability of a second complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The complainant had initially filed a private complaint under Section 4 of the Act, but due to her non-appearance during the proceedings, the complaint was dismissed, resulting in the acquittal of the accused. The complainant subsequently filed a second complaint, which was also dismissed. The court affirmed that the Trial Court had the authority under Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code to dismiss the complaint if the complainant didn’t appear on a subsequent date of hearing after summoning the accused. The complainant’s absence wasn’t unintentional, and the court noted that the complainant herself had admitted that she was not in physical possession of the disputed land. The court concluded that the Trial Court’s dismissal of the second complaint was valid and upheld.

In another case involving the same parties, Mst. NEELAM PARVEEN vs. State  2012 PCrLJ 581 Lahore High Court Lahore, the court discussed the claim made by the petitioner/complainant. The complainant, Mst. Neelam Parveen, asserted that she was the widow of the owner of a disputed property and alleged that the respondents/accused had taken control of her land with the collusion of previous owners. The respondents/accused, on the other hand, argued that they were bona fide purchasers of the land and had followed all legal procedures for acquiring it.

The court observed that the matter seemed to be a civil dispute, and the petitioner could seek the restoration of her possession through civil legal avenues. The court highlighted that the complainant had admitted in her complaint that she was not in physical possession of the land in question. Moreover, the allegations of forceful dispossession contradicted the facts of the case. The respondents’ possession was supported by mutation records, and the court concluded that the case did not fall within the ambit of Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. As such, the court rejected the petition, finding no grounds for interference.

In the case of MOHI UD DIN vs. MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR SIDDIQUE, 2012 MLD 673 Quetta High Court Balochistan, the dispute concerned the restoration of possession of a property. The petitioner, Mohi Ud Din, claimed to be a bona fide purchaser of the property in question and argued for his legal title and possession. The Trial Court had restored possession to the complainant while exercising powers under Section 7(4) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The High Court, however, found that the Trial Court had not provided the petitioner an opportunity to be heard before passing the order for dispossession. Additionally, there were errors in relying on a report from a Station House Officer (SHO) who was a respondent in the complaint. The court concluded that the order for restoration of possession was against the relevant provisions of law and set it aside.

The citation 2012 PCrLJ 581 Lahore High Court Lahore also delves into the purpose and scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Act was introduced to address the activities of property grabbers, also known as “Qabza Groups” or “Land Mafia,” who illegally took possession of others’ property using force. The Act’s contents and objectives applied specifically to individuals involved in such activities, rather than those who lacked the credentials or background of property grabbers.

In the case of “Mst. NEELAM PARVEEN vs. State,” based on the citation 2012 PCrLJ 581 Lahore High Court Lahore, the court addressed the maintainability of a second complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The complainant had filed a private complaint under Section 4 of the Act, and despite evidence being recorded and the accused being summoned, the complainant absented herself during the proceedings. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, leading to the acquittal of the accused. The complainant initiated a second complaint, which was also dismissed. The court noted that the Trial Court was within its jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint due to the complainant’s non-appearance after summoning the accused. The court emphasized that the provisions of Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code provided the Trial Court with the authority to dismiss the complaint in such circumstances. The court rejected the contention that the Trial Court lacked the power to adjudicate on the matter.

In the same “Mst. NEELAM PARVEEN vs. State” case, also under the citation 2012 PCrLJ 581 Lahore High Court Lahore, the court evaluated the claim made by the petitioner/complainant. The petitioner asserted that she was the widow of the property owner and alleged that the respondents/accused had taken possession of her land with the involvement of previous owners. The court observed that the dispute seemed to be of a civil nature. It recommended that the petitioner pursue her remedy through civil litigation to restore ownership or possession. The court highlighted that the petitioner herself admitted in her private complaint that she wasn’t physically in possession of the disputed land. The court found that the allegations of forceful dispossession contradicted the facts of the case, and the respondents had documented evidence of mutation in their favor. The court concluded that the petitioner’s complaint did not fall within the scope of Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. Therefore, the court declined the petition, finding no grounds for interference.

Regarding “ABDUL QAHIR alias SADIQ vs. BIBI AISHA,” as per the citation 2012 PLD 189 Quetta High Court Balochistan, the court discussed the concept of “constructive possession.” The court highlighted that a person who knowingly possesses the power and intention to exercise control over a thing, either directly or through others, is considered to be in constructive possession of that thing. This concept is significant when determining possession in cases related to illegal dispossession.

In the case of “SHAHZADA KHAN vs. BADAR ISLAM,” based on the citation 2012 YLR 2004 Peshawar High Court, the court clarified that disputes between co-sharers or individuals claiming possession under valid titles do not necessarily fall under the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court emphasized that the Act was designed to address situations involving land grabbers or individuals with antecedents of being involved in land mafias. Disputes among co-sharers or those with legitimate property rights are generally considered civil in nature and should be resolved through appropriate civil legal avenues.

The “Mst. INAYATAN KHATOON vs. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN” case, as per the citation 2012 SCMR 229 Supreme Court, clarified the distinctions between the trial procedures under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and the Criminal Procedure Code. It explained that trials under the Act are distinct from complaint cases under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. The court noted that the Act itself is a special law that supersedes relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, can be compared to a complaint under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., while a report under Section 5(1) of the Act can be equated to a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.

In the case of “Miss SHAGUFTA PARVEEN KHAN vs. FATEH JUNG,” as per the citation 2012 YLR 2907 Karachi High Court Sindh, the court discussed the appeal against acquittal in an illegal dispossession case. The complainant alleged that the accused had merged her father’s plot with their house and occupied it illegally. The accused were acquitted by the Trial Court after a hearing under Section 265-K of the Cr.P.C. The court affirmed the Trial Court’s exercise of powers under Section 265-K and upheld the acquittal. It was noted that since the complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was withdrawn in a subsequent litigation round, the accused stood acquitted under Section 403 of the Cr.P.C.

In the case of “ABDUL QAHIR alias SADIQ vs. BIBI AISHA,” based on the citation 2012 PLD 189 Quetta High Court Balochistan, the concept of double jeopardy and its application to the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was discussed. The court clarified that the principle of double jeopardy, which prevents a person from being tried for the same offence twice, applies when the accused has been tried and there is a judgment or order of conviction or acquittal. The court noted that the punishment provided in Section 3(2) of the Act appears to be in addition to any punishment under other laws. The mere lodging of an FIR and filing a complaint under the Act would not trigger the rule of double jeopardy.

In the case of “Mst. INAYATAN KHATOON vs. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN,” based on the citation 2012 SCMR 229 Supreme Court, the interpretation of the words “owner or occupier” in Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was discussed. The Trial Court entertained a complaint against the accused, but the High Court set aside the order, stating that cognizance could only be taken by following the procedure under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court clarified that the examination of the complainant under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. was not mandatory before taking cognizance under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The High Court’s findings were contrary to the language of the Act, and it misdirected itself by limiting the term “owner or occupier” to a single individual. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the matter to the

In the case of “ABDUL QAHIR alias SADIQ vs. BIBI AISHA,” based on the citation 2012 PLD 189 Quetta High Court Balochistan, the concept of “lawful possession” and the definition of “owner” were discussed. The complainant’s property was recorded in her deceased husband’s name, and she claimed possession through a watchman. The accused argued that the complainant lacked legal status to file a complaint under the Act. The court ruled that although the complainant was not the recorded owner, she had a legal claim through inheritance. Her watchman’s presence in the property indicated possession. The filing of an FIR did not bar her from availing a remedy under the Act.

In the case of “Mst. INAYATAN KHATOON vs. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN,” based on the citation 2012 SCMR 229 Supreme Court, the distinction between a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. was discussed. The court clarified that a complaint under the Act can be equated with a complaint under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., while a report under Section 5(1) of the Act can be equated with a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. The Trial Court can take cognizance as per Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. based on such a report, but a complaint under Section 5(1) of the Act cannot be processed as a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.

The case of “2011 YLR 647 Lahore High Court Lahore” centered on the object and purpose of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Act was designed to address property grabbers or land mafia who forcibly take possession of properties. The court emphasized that the Act’s provisions applied only to those with a history of being property grabbers or belonging to a land mafia. In this case, the accused, being the owner of the land in question, did not have such a history, and the Act’s provisions were not applicable.

In the case of Haji Taj Din vs. Sh. Mujib Ullah (2009 PCrLJ 864), the Lahore High Court addressed the issue of the competency of a complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 in the presence of other legal proceedings such as civil suits, contempt petitions, and FIRs. The court emphasized that multiple remedies can be availed simultaneously under civil or criminal law. An aggrieved person dispossessed of property can pursue various remedies, including filing a civil suit under the Specific Relief Act, 1877, initiating criminal proceedings under sections 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C., or filing a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court clarified that the Act was enacted to protect owners and lawful occupants against illegal occupation, and it offers speedy and effective relief. There is no restriction on approaching different forums concurrently, and each forum can proceed on its merits. The court emphasized that the Act applies to all cases of illegal occupation, and the mere filing of civil suits or other proceedings after the act of dispossession does not affect the application of the Act.

In the case of Muhammad Arshad Bhatti vs. Muhammad Bux (2009 YLR 1507), the Karachi High Court dealt with a situation where an application under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, had been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, who considered the dispute to be of a civil nature. The High Court found that the applicants were proper allottees of the plots and had attached relevant documents to prove their ownership. The Court remanded the case to the Sessions Court, emphasizing that the matter should be decided on its merits, as it appeared to involve illegal dispossession.

The case of Edward Henry Louis vs. Dr. Mutammad Safdar (2009 PCrLJ 1359) focused on the power of granting interim relief under Section 7(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Karachi High Court noted that the Act’s purpose was to curb land grabbing activities and protect the rights of owners and lawful occupants. The court emphasized that the power to grant interim relief should be exercised with caution, only after framing the charges, and not before. The Act’s objective is to proceed with the trial based on available material.

In Abdul Hafeez vs. Additional District Judge-VII, South Karachi (2009 PLD 350), the Karachi High Court clarified that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is a special law providing remedies to those illegally dispossessed from their property. The Act’s provisions do not bar an aggrieved person from seeking remedies under other laws concurrently. Filing an FIR or availing remedies under other laws does not preclude the application of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

Lastly, in Anjum Jillani vs. Mst. Feroza Jillani (2008 YLR 2280), the Peshawar High Court considered the extension of bail under Section 381-A of the Cr.P.C. and its application to the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court discussed that the accused, in this case, had been sentenced to one year of imprisonment and did not have an automatic right of appeal to the apex court. Therefore, the court ruled that the accused could not be released on bail under the provisions of Section 381-A of the Cr.P.C.

2008 YLR 2299 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

This case addressed the forfeiture of bail bonds under the Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005), specifically focusing on the financial position of the surety when forfeiting the bail bond. The court emphasized that while forfeiting bail bonds, courts must consider the financial situation of the sureties. The court’s lenient view in passing the impugned order was upheld, and no jurisdictional defects were found to warrant interference through revisional jurisdiction.

2008 PLD 421 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

The case involved illegal dispossession under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The complainant alleged that her flat was illegally occupied. The Trial Court issued non-bailable warrants and ordered the complainant to be put in possession of the flat without hearing the applicants. The High Court set aside this order, emphasizing that both parties should be heard before such orders are passed.

2008 PLD 27 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN:

This case clarified that both “owners” and “occupiers” can approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for enforcement of rights under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The term “owner” must have been recorded as such, and lawful “occupiers” are protected under the Act, but not trespassers.

2008 PCrLJ 199 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE:

This case dealt with the withdrawal of a complaint under Sections 3, 4, and 7 of the Act. The appellant filed a complaint, interim possession was granted, but the complaint was later withdrawn. The High Court ruled that an order under Section 7 of the Act could be passed for temporary relief during the main case’s pendency. If the main case is withdrawn, there’s no justification for the interim order to continue.

2008 YLR 2280 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

This case discussed the extension of bail under Section 381-A of the Cr.P.C. in relation to the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court explained that an accused sentenced to less than one year imprisonment can be extended the concession of bail to file an appeal in the apex court. However, this case clarified that the accused can’t be released on bail under this provision if they need to seek the apex court’s leave for a special appeal.

2007 YLR 209 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE:

This case addressed an order dismissing an application under Section 265-K of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner alleged illegal dispossession, but the court found that the petitioner wasn’t actually dispossessed and the dispute was of a civil nature. The court dismissed the petition as no case under the Illegal Dispossession Act was made out.

2007 PCRLJ 1297 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

This case highlighted that a complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act was not maintainable, as the dispute was civil in nature. The court emphasized that the Act applies when there’s actual illegal dispossession, not interference with possession.

2007 PLD 123 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE:

This case discussed the maintainability of an appeal against a conviction under Section 3 of the Act. It was argued that since the Act didn’t provide for a right of appeal, the appeal wasn’t maintainable. The court clarified that the remedy would be available under the Criminal Procedure Code, and the absence of a provision in the Act doesn’t bar appeal.

2007 PCRLJ 1784 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

This case addressed the simultaneous initiation of civil and criminal proceedings. The court emphasized that both remedies could be availed concurrently. A civil suit didn’t preclude the filing of a complaint under the Act, especially when there was actual illegal dispossession.

2006 MLD 1942 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE:

This case dealt with a complaint related to an alleged illegal encroachment on a path. The court found that the petitioner didn’t have lawful possession over the path and was not entitled to the relief under the Illegal Dispossession Act. The petition was dismissed.

2006 YLR 2686 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE:

This case discussed the quashing of proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. It clarified that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, would apply to proceedings under the Act wherever required. The Court of Session could entertain and try a complaint if it disclosed contravention of Section 3 of the Act.

PLD 2007 72 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN:

This case involves questions of fact regarding dispossession and property ownership. The High Court found that the questions of whether dispossession occurred and whether title vested in the petitioners were factual matters that should have been resolved after taking evidence. The District and Sessions Judge’s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for proper determination in accordance with the relevant legal provisions.

2022 MLD 1232 ISLAMABAD:

This case centers around objections raised on a report of a local commission during an investigation. The High Court upheld the objections, stating that the proceedings were conducted in the presence of all concerned parties. It found no objection mentioned during the spot inspection. Therefore, the objections were dismissed.

2022 PCrLJ 1603 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

This case deals with the applicability of the Criminal Procedure Code to cases under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court ruled that while the Illegal Dispossession Act has its own provisions, in the absence of a specific provision, the Criminal Procedure Code applies. This reaffirms the principle that the two sets of laws can coexist, with the Illegal Dispossession Act taking precedence in certain matters.

2022 YLR 1696 ISLAMABAD:

The case highlights the maintainability of complaints under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The High Court emphasized that the Act is intended to address forcible dispossession and is not a substitute for civil disputes. The complainant failed to provide legal and cogent evidence, and the Court declined to interfere, stressing that proceedings under the Act should be based on the Act’s principles and timelines.

2021 PCrLJ 1476 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN:

This case involved a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Trial Court dismissed the complaint, deeming it a civil dispute. The High Court held that the matter was a factual controversy, requiring thorough inquiry and evidence in a civil court. The petition for revision was dismissed, reaffirming the distinction between the Act and civil proceedings.

2020 YLR 1 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

In this case, the Court discussed the interaction between criminal and civil liabilities in cases of illegal dispossession. It clarified that proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Illegal Dispossession Act are distinct and not regulated by the Civil Procedure Code. The case underscores the separate legal frameworks governing these proceedings.

 2020 PCrLJ 721 ISLAMABAD:

The case focuses on the evaluation of evidence in a case of illegal dispossession. The Court noted that the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish illegal possession under the Act. It highlighted the importance of proper proof and dismissed the charges, emphasizing the civil nature of the matter.

2020 MLD 1798 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN:

This case pertains to the summoning of a witness under Section 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court emphasized that if a person’s evidence is essential for a just decision, there is no discretion to prevent their examination. The Court criticized the Trial Court’s failure to consider the principles and law governing such applications and ordered the proposed witness to be summoned.

 2020 YLR 1317 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

The case revolves around the legality of illegal dispossession complaints despite pending civil litigation. The High Court clarified that the Illegal Dispossession Act provides a remedy for cases of illegal possession, regardless of pending civil disputes. It emphasized that such complaints are maintainable if the alleged possession is without lawful authority.