Law: Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Section: XI,3,5

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898

Section: 342,340(2),544A

Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005)-------Ss. 3 & 5---Illegal dispossession of property---Appreciation of evidence--Civil Court to first decide issue of partition/demarcation of disputed land--Allegation against the accused persons was that they dispossessed the complainant party forcibly from their land---In the present case both the parties were real brothers and were at loggerheads and there appeared to be a civil/revenue/inheritance dispute over some of the portion of the subject land--In such a scenario, the Trial Court ought to have referred the matter to the civil/revenue Court first to decide the issue of partition/demarcation of the subject land rather than convicting the brothers of the complainant under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, as there appeared no valid ground to claim that the accused were land grabbers/Qaza Mafia and the Civil Court could easily decide the issue of possession of the land---Thus, appeal against conviction was allowed leaving the parties to resort to the Court of plenary jurisdiction for possession, which shall regulate the affairs of the subject land till final decision.Date of hearing: 13th May, 2024.JUDGMENTADNAN-UL-KARIM MEMON, J.---The applicants Barkat Ali, Shoukat Ali, and Sikandar Ali, and private respondent Liaquat Ali are real brothers who have a dispute over inherited property i.e. Survey No. 2/1( 1-2) and others, whereas in survey No. 2/1, 2/3 and others respondent Liaquat Ali claims to be the owner of four (4) acres purchased by him independently and there is no right of inheritance in that land. However, he succeeded in filing a Criminal I.D Complaint No. 92 of 2022 before the learned Sessions Judge Ghotki against applicants/brothers under sections 3 and 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, who were tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (MCTC), Ubauro District Ghotki, to suffer R.I for 05 years and with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-(Fifty thousand). In default to pay the fine, the applicants suffer S.I. for 03 months more. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lac) was also imposed upon the applicants as compensation payable to the complainant under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. It was further…

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