Citator on Illegal

Dispossession Act 2005

1. Adeel Zahoor Malik vs. Abdul Sattar Shaikh Citation: 2023 YLR

187 Karachi High Court Sindh: The petitioners challenged the

dismissal of their complaint under Section 3 of the Illegal

Dispossession Act, 2005, claiming that they were dispossessed from

a property by the Official Assignee as per a court order. The High

Court held that the action of repossession was lawful, and no offence

under the Act was established. The possession was taken in line with

a civil suit judgment, leading to the rightful dismissal of the

complaint. Revision application was dismissed.

2. Moran Khan vs. Ali Nawaz Citation: 2023 YLR 173 Karachi High

Court Sindh: The complainant failed to file a special leave to appeal

within 60 days of a judgment's acquittal, as required by Section 417

of the Cr.P.C. An appeal against the acquittal under Section 3(2) of

the Illegal Dispossession Act was thus not maintainable. Even if

allowed, it would have been time-barred. The acquittal appeal was

dismissed.

3. Muhammad Azeem vs. State Citation: 2023 MLD 823 Karachi

High Court Sindh: The Trial Court failed to assess whether the

criteria for illegal dispossession under Section 3 of the Illegal

Dispossession Act, 2005, were met. Instead, it delved into questions

of property title that were pending in civil court. The High Court set

aside the conviction, reasoning that the Trial Court should have

focused on prima facie evidence of illegal dispossession.

4. Mst. Khursheed Begum vs. Syed Mahmood Shah Citation: 2023

YLRN 63 Karachi High Court Sindh: The complainant's case was

weakened by inconsistencies regarding the property's purchase

agreement and lack of supporting documents. Witnesses were not

examined to prove the facts. The sale agreement did not establish

ownership. As a result, the appeal against acquittal was dismissed.

5. Imam Bux vs. Ali Muhammad Citation: 2023 YLRN 44 Karachi

High Court Sindh: The Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by

issuing a direction to a Mukhtiarkar for demarcation while acquitting

the accused. The complainant's evidence failed to prove

dispossession, and the Trial Court's direction was against the

principles of a fair trial. The High Court set aside the direction.

6. Noorullah vs. Muhammad Farrukh Citation: 2023 YLRN 9

Karachi High Court Sindh: The accused were found to be

unlawfully occupying the property, and the Trial Court's decision to

allow the complainant's application under Section 7 of the Illegal

Dispossession Act was upheld. The High Court clarified that filing a

complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act was not barred during

civil litigation. The evidence supported the finding of illegal

possession, and the revision application was dismissed.

7. Salman Baloch vs. Shahzain Citation: 2023 YLRN 7 Karachi High

Court Sindh: The complainant's evidence of illegal dispossession

lacked corroboration and was unreliable due to an ongoing feud

between the parties. The acquittal judgment was based on proper

reasoning, and the appeal was dismissed.

8. Syed Jan Ali Shah vs. Soomar Jagirani Citation: 2023 YLRN 2

Karachi High Court Sindh: The evidence did not establish the
 accused's forcible dispossession, and the Trial Court rightly

acquitted them. The matter was complicated by an unresolved civil

dispute, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

9. Haji Muhammad Yunis (Deceased) vs. Mst. Farukh Sultan

Citation: 2022 SCMR 1282 Supreme Court: The legal heirs of the

vendor challenged a sale mutation in favor of overseas Pakistanis,

alleging fraud and forgery. The High Court dismissed the complaint

under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Supreme Court found

that crucial facts were manipulated during the proceedings, leading

to the restoration of the judgments of the trial and appellate courts.

10. Eid Muhammad vs. State Citation: 2022 MLD 630 Quetta

High Court Balochistan: The accused was accused of illegal

dispossession, but the evidence did not support the claim. The

matter was deemed a civil dispute, and the appeal against conviction

was accepted.

11. Muhammad Yar vs. Muhammad Umer Citation: 2022 YLRN

100 Quetta High Court Balochistan: The complainant failed to

mention essential details in the complaint, and the case was sub

judice with civil disputes pending. No forceful dispossession evidence

was presented, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against

acquittal.

12. Syed Zanon Mian vs. Mst. Misslunisa Citation: 2022 YLR

2252 Peshawar High Court: The Trial Court acquitted the accused

but ordered restoration of possession to the complainant, which was

legally incorrect. The conviction was a prerequisite for the restoration

of property. The case was remanded for an appropriate judgment.

13. Habib Ullah vs. Chaman Citation: 2022 PCrLJ 1730

PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT: Petitioners challenged the restoration of

possession to respondents by the Trial Court in a criminal matter.

They claimed that the act of dispossession was legal. The Court held

that a mere pending civil litigation does not affect criminal

proceedings under the Act. The complainant proved illegal

dispossession with evidence. The petition was dismissed as the Trial

Court rightly ordered restoration of possession.

14. Mohammad Hanif vs. Additional District Judge, Vehari

Citation: 2022 YLR 76 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: The

respondents' suit for possession was decreed by the Trial Court. They

sought to amend the plaint during the civil revision. The Court found

flaws in the evidence and the amendments. It highlighted the lack of

evidence supporting the respondent's claim. The Court allowed the

constitutional petition, directing relevant authorities to safeguard

government interest in the suit property.

15. Malik Muhammad Ejaz Channar vs. State Citation: 2022

PLD 427 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: The case involved the

withdrawal of a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act. The

Court concluded that the provisions of the Act don't specify the

application of certain Cr.P.C. chapters, making Section 248 Cr.P.C.

available to the court. The withdrawal of the complaint was allowed

under S. 248 Cr.P.C.

16. Khair Muhammad vs. Ali Sher Citation: 2022 PCrLJ 1603

KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: The case dealt with an order

granting interim relief to the complainant under section 7 of the

Illegal Dispossession Act. The Court found that the Trial Court didn't
 follow the necessary conditions before passing the order. The order

was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision.

17. Shabana Khan vs. Major (Retd.) Jehanzeb Aslam Citation:

2022 MLD 1109 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: The case

involved an application under S. 265-K Cr.P.C. for pre-mature

acquittal. The Court clarified that S. 265-K is not applicable to cases

registered upon complaint under the Act. The revision application

was dismissed, and the complaint couldn't be summarily dismissed.

18. Reema Fatima Abbasi vs. Arif Ali Khan Abbasi Citation:

2022 YLRN 174 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: The complainant

alleged illegal dispossession from her father's house. The Court

emphasized the need for material particulars and evidence in cases

under the Act, targeting professional land grabbers. The case

differentiated between cases of solitary illegal dispossession and

those involving professional land grabbers. The revision application

was dismissed for lack of evidence.

19. Noorani Travels vs. Muhammad Hanif Citation: 2022 YLRN

75 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: The complainant alleged illegal

dispossession after a writ of eviction was issued. The Court ruled

that the dispossession due to an eviction order couldn't be termed

illegal. The revision application was dismissed.

20. Shahid Ali Khan vs. Ali Ashraf alias Wilayat Chandio

Citation: 2022 YLRN 65 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: The

appellant claimed illegal dispossession from agricultural land. The

Court found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence

and that the dispute was still pending in civil court. The appeal
 against acquittal was dismissed as the appellant couldn't prove the

case beyond reasonable doubt.

21. Abu Yahya Asif vs. State Citation: 2022 PCrLJN 53

KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: The complainant claimed illegal

dispossession without title documents. The Court noted the absence

of title documents and converted the civil dispute to a criminal case.

The acquittal was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

22. Niaz Mohammad (Deceased) vs. Umer Khayam Citation:

2022 PCrLJN 14 Karachi High Court Sindh: Complaint under the

Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was dismissed due to the alleged

incident predating the Act's promulgation. The issue was whether

the Act applies retrospectively. The Act applies if no case was

pending against the illegal occupant at the Act's promulgation. If a

case was already pending, the Act doesn't apply. The Act applies

against an illegal occupant if no case was pending at its

promulgation.

23. Qaiser Jabbar vs. Syed Mati Ullah Shah Citation: 2022 YLR

1696 Islamabad: The complainant's criminal complaint under the

Illegal Dispossession Act was dismissed as civil litigation was

ongoing. The issue was the maintainability of the complaint. The Act

is applicable only to land grabbers and should not settle civil

disputes. The High Court declined to interfere, as civil litigation was

pending, and the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence.

24. Farhan Mustafa vs. State Citation: 2022 YLR 1 Islamabad.

The petitioner alleged land grabbing with police and official support.

Settlement attempts were made, but grievances remained, including

environmental concerns. The Authority and Company breached legal

 obligations and environmental laws. Various directions were given to

protect citizens' rights, demarcate acquired land, and ensure

accountability and environmental protection.

25. Shaikh Muhammad Naseem vs. Mst. Farida Gul Citation:

2016 SCMR 1931 Supreme Court A complaint under the Illegal

Dispossession Act was challenged due to pending civil litigation. The

question was whether the Act could be applied irrespective of civil

litigation. The Act can be applied regardless of pending civil litigation.

The proceedings under the Act were maintainable.

26. Mst. Gulshan Bibi vs. Muhammad Sadiq Citation: 2016 PLD

769 Supreme Court: The complainant filed a case under the Illegal

Dispossession Act against the accused. The question was whether

the accused had to be a professional land grabber. The Act applies

to anyone who illegally dispossesses property. The Act doesn't

require the accused to be a professional land grabber.

27. Habibullah vs. Abdul Manan Citation: 2012 SCMR 1533

Supreme Court. The landlords took possession due to unpaid

electricity bills. They were convicted under the Act. The issue was

whether the Act applied. The evidence did not show the landlords as

land mafia. The Act was for specific purposes. The landlords were

acquitted; the Act didn't apply in this case.

28. Mst. Inayatan Khatoon vs. Muhammad Ramzan Citation:

2012 SCMR 229 Supreme Court. The complaint under the Act was

challenged regarding the procedure. The issue was whether a

complaint or police report was required. The Act itself is a special law

and overrides the Criminal Procedure Code. The Act's procedure

takes precedence; a complaint can be equated with a police report.

29. Muhammad Fazal vs. Saeedullah Khan Citation: 2011

SCMR 1137 Supreme Court. The alleged dispossession occurred

before the Act's introduction. The question was whether the Act

applied retrospectively. The Act's penal provisions cannot be applied

retrospectively. The Act had no application to this case.

30. Nasrullah vs. State Citation: 2011 SCMR 549 Supreme

Court. The accused were convicted under the Act. The issue was

whether there was a right of appeal and revision. The Act doesn't

provide for appeal or revision, but it is competent under Art. 185(3).

The accused's appeal and complainant's revision were competent,

and the case was to be decided on its merits.

31. WAQAR ALI VS THE STATE (2011 PLD 181 SUPREME-

COURT): In this case, the complainant used the term "Tajawuz"

(encroachment) rather than criminal trespass, leading to a lack of

evidence of criminal intent. The Supreme Court emphasized that to

constitute an offence under the Illegal Dispossession Act, both

unlawful act and criminal intent must be evident. The court held

that Trial Courts must filter out complaints that do not disclose the

necessary criminal intent and dismissed the complaint.

32. FAZAL AHMED VS ARIF ANWAR SAEED (2010 SCMR 1584

SUPREME-COURT): The petitioners sought the conversion of non-

bailable warrants into bailable warrants. The Supreme Court

converted the petition for leave to appeal into a criminal appeal,

setting aside the High Court's order and modifying the Trial Court's

non-bailable warrants into bailable ones to enable the petitioners to

surrender and seek bail, as they were willing to face the proceedings.
33. MUMTAZ HUSSAIN VS Dr. NASIR KHAN (2010 SCMR 1254

SUPREME-COURT): The court clarified that the Illegal

Dispossession Act applied to dispossession by any person, including

land grabbers or Qabza groups. It emphasized that a complaint could

be validly filed against a person holding unlawful or illegal

possession. The Act was not limited to professional land grabbers

but applied to all illegal occupants.

34. SHAHABUDDIN VS State (2010 PLD 725 SUPREME-

COURT): The court clarified that the Illegal Dispossession Act does

not have retrospective effect and may not apply to cases pending

before other forums on its promulgation date. However, it does apply

to illegal occupants who were not subject to other pending

proceedings. The court upheld the conviction of an illegal occupant

under the Act.

35. BASHIR AHMAD VS ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAISALABAD (2010 PLD 661 SUPREME-COURT): The court

upheld the Trial Court's acquittal of the respondents, co-sharers in

the disputed land, as there was no evidence to prove them as land

grabbers or illegal occupants. The petitioner's attempt to transform

a civil dispute into a criminal case was deemed an abuse of process.

36. Dr MUHAMMAD SAFDAR VS EDWARD HENRY LOUIS (2009

PLD 404 SUPREME-COURT): This case clarified that the Illegal

Dispossession Act should not be applied retrospectively. Parties who

had already instituted civil suits regarding the same property before

the Act's enforcement could not invoke its provisions ex post facto.

37. RAHIM TAHIR VS AHMED JAN (2007 PLD 423 SUPREME-

COURT): The court reiterated that the Illegal Dispossession Act does
 not have retrospective effect and clarified that it applies to illegal

occupants who entered the premises after its promulgation, except

for cases pending before other forums.

38. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT,

LAYYAH DIVISION VS ABDUL MAJEED (2006 SCMR 907

SUPREME-COURT): The court highlighted that a disputed question

of title should not be determined summarily, especially without

giving the concerned parties an opportunity to defend themselves. It

criticized the High Court for directing the police to take possession

without hearing the respondents and set aside both impugned

orders.