Law: Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Section: XI,3,4,5

Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005)-------Ss. 3, 4 & 5---Illegal dispossession of property---Appreciation of evidence--Civil dispute over property between the parties---Scope---Accused-appellants were charged for dispossessing the complainant from his property and taking illegal possession of the land and making construction thereon---Bare reading of the contents of complaint reflected that the same was silent to the effect that as to why the respondent/complainant kept mum for a long period of eleven years i.e. 2010 to 2021 after his illegal dispossession from the property in question and did not file complaint or initiate any legal proceedings against the present appellants before any competent forum rather in the first round of litigation in the year 2016 the respondent/ complainant filed a case under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 before the Trial Court against one "KR", wherein it was alleged that said "KR" had illegally occupied and built rooms and a boundary wall over the land of the complainant, which was dismissed by the Trial Court---Besides, the complainant had also filed a civil suit for declaration against the said "KR" in the year 2016 and subsequently, the same was withdrawn by the complainant---Not approaching any legal forum by the respondent/complainant against the present appellants for redressal of his grievance and keeping silence for 11 years was suggestive of the fact that there existed civil dispute between the parties---Even otherwise, the mode of dispossession was also not mentioned in the complaint coupled with long-standing possession of the appellants (accused)---Said factors were enough to hold that the appellants (accused) did not belong to class of property grabbers or Qabza group and that's why no such allegations had been leveled, hence no case under S.3 of the Act of 2005 was made out rather it appeared from the record that the matter between the parties was of civil nature and could be decided by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction---Admittedly, on the one hand, the complainant had failed to show his possession, while on the other hand, no concrete evidence had been produced by the complainant from which he could…