Law: Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Section: XI,3,7,8,8A

Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005)-------Ss. 3, 7, 8 & 8-A---Illegal dispossession---Restoration of possession--Petitioner/accused was aggrieved of order passed by Trial Court restoring possession to respondent/complainant---Validity---Primary aspect of the case, which seemed to have swayed the Trial Court in ordering that the property be taken away from Mr. "A" and handed over to Mr. "I", was that in a preliminary inquiry, the documents of title of the property in question were with Mr. "I" and not with Mr. "A"---Documents of the property on which Mr. "A" relied were fake---Trial Courts seized of criminal complaints under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, often made a slight overreach and also decided issues regarding ownership of the property, which was not the correct approach---Only the Civil Courts of competent jurisdiction could make such findings---Such issue required evidence to be recorded by a Civil Court before such declarations or pronouncements of a conclusive nature were made---Prima facie ownership of the property might only be one of the factors considered by a Criminal Court when adjudicating a S.7 application under the Act of 2005---Primary finding had to be that who was in possession when dispossession was alleged and on what basis the possessor claimed his possession---Person's possession of a property, when he was not the owner, might not always be illegal---In the current case, prima facie, it seemed that Mr. "I" based his property ownership on an agreement to sell---If that was found correct, the question arose about how an agreement to sell established title--Allotment Letter of the property showed that it was allotted to "SJ" with the condition that selling the property was prohibited---How did "SJ" agree to sell the same to Mr. "I"---How did the Lyari Expressway Resettlement Project issued a Transfer Order in the name of Mr. "I" when, apart from the restriction on sale, there was no document on record to show that the sale transaction between "SJ" and Mr. "I" ever culminated---On the contrary, Mr. "A" had documents to show prima facie that the property's electricity, water and gas connections were in his wife's name and that…