Law: Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Section: 3,4,7

Law: Land Reforms Act, 1977

Section: 135

Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005-----Ss. 3, 4 & 7--Conviction & sentence--Acquittal of--Land was undivided--Co-sharer--Joint possession--Non-availability of evidence--Jurisdiction--Challenge to--Parties are descendants who left behind heirs and some land were left behind them which are in joint possession of parties--However, it was case of complainant that they have divided lands according to their shares, but on face of record no such evidence has been brought to prove factum of partition in between them--It is well settled law that all co-sharers are deemed to be owners of land unless land is divided /partitioned in accordance with law u/s. 135 of Land Revenue Act, 1967--It is well settled proposition of law that every criminal case has to be decided in its own peculiar circumstances and facts--Disputed land was un-divided in between parties--It is legally presumed that every share holder of a joint holding would be deemed to be in joint possession--Since respondent/complainant himself during cross-examination admits that "it is also correct that land falling in khasra was never partitioned by meets and bounds by any revenue department--During cross-examination, complainant further stated that it is correct that "I as well as respondents agreed in jirga that a person namely be appointed for measurement of whole property including house of Shahzad, later on objected and refused to accept measurement done--Meaning thereby, still whole property has not been divided/partitioned in between them, therefore, under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, trial Court is not competent to determine legal character and to pass upon for handing over of possession of piece of land to some one, as same is not vested in its jurisdiction--Civil Court and revenue authorities are competent to resolve issues--There is no direct evidence against accused to attract provisions of Section 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005--It is an admitted fact that still land in dispute has not been properly partitioned through revenue staff and still no revenue record has been maintained about partition in between parties--Possession of one co-sharer always deems to be possession of all…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492