Law: Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Section: XI,3(3),3(2),8(2)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 265H(1)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 10A

Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005)-------Ss. 8(2) & 3(2) & 3(3)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 265-H(1)--Constitution of Pakistan, Art.10-A---Restoration of possession of disputed land---Failure of the court to convict and identify the person in the order from whom possession was to be recovered---Effect---Inconsistency in findings of court---Non-impleadment of petitioner being in possession of a portion of the disputed property---Effect---Petitioner being owner and in possession of portion of disputed land challenged the order only to the extent of restoration of possession to the complainant/respondent---Validity---Order was riddled with inconsistencies and exemplified a perverse application of law---On one hand it concluded that the accused persons (from whom possession was sought in the complaint) were not in possession of the disputed land and acquitted them and on the other hand the complainant was held entitled to regain possession of the disputed land under S. 8(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (Act) and direction was given to restore the possession without specifying or identifying the individual from whom the possession was to be recovered---Order was vague and lacked specificity as it did not identify that who illegally possessed the disputed land or from whom it should be restored to the complainant--Under S.8 read with Ss.3(2) & 3(3) of the Act the court could only order the restoration of immovable property upon conviction of the accused, however, court had acquitted both the accused and simultaneously ordered the restoration of possession of the disputed land to the complainant---Conviction was a prerequisite for ordering the restoration of possession under S. 8 of the Act---Order violated the fundamental principle of natural justice and Art. 10-A of the Constitution by condemning the unidentified current possessor of the disputed land without granting him an opportunity to be heard---By ordering the restoration of possession without identifying or considering the current possessor's claim or perspective, the order effectively denied the fundamental right to a fair hearing, and failure to provide the petitioner…