Law: Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Section: 3, 4

Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005) Ss. 3 & 4---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---Accused was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court---Validity---Record showed that on 17.11.2017 complainant filed a suit for declaration qua the same property against the appellant and others, wherein appellant appeared before the Civil Court concerned and stated that he was in possession of his own land and had not grabbed the land of complainant which was disposed of accordingly---On 15.09.2020 complainant moved an application under S.67-B of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 for taking possession of the suit land against the appellant on the basis of demarcation report dated 22.04.2019 prepared by the Revenue Officer concerned, which too was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner concerned and appeal filed by the appellant against demarcation report dated 22.04.2019 was accepted by the appellate authority concerned---On 07.04.2021 father of complainant, filed suit for possession regarding the suit land against the appellant---During pendency of the said suit, on 03.02.2022 with the delay of more than ten months instant private complaint by concocting a new story had been filed by the complainant against the same suit land whereafter his father had withdrawn his suit for possession to file fresh one, which was allowed vide order dated 15.02.2023 but fresh suit had not been filed yet---In earlier trial, appellant was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court but in Criminal Appeal filed by appellant matter was remanded with the observations that the demarcation report posited that Revenue Officer simply stated that Khasra No. 201 had been considered permanent point by the persons present there and from that Khasra without determining its exact location started demarcation of the disputed Khasra numbers---Demarcation report did not figure out that Revenue Officer had determined three permanent points from different angles after determining their exact location to…