2012 MLD 673 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Full text

MOHI UD DIN VS MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR SIDDIQUE Illegal Dispossession Act 2005--3 , Illegal Dispossession Act 2005--4 , Illegal Dispossession Act 2005--5 , Illegal Dispossession Act 2005--7 , Ss. 3, 4, 5 & 7---Prevention of illegal possession of property, investigation and procedure, eviction and mode of recovery as an interim relief---Petitioner claimed to be bona fide purchaser of the property in question, and on the basis thereof claimed his title and possession to be legal but Trial Court, allowing complainant's interim application, restored possession of premises to the complainant while exercising powers under S. 7(4) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---Validity---Trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the report submitted by the Station House Officer (SHO) supported the version of the complainant that there was history of breaking of locks of the complainant's house, which was being illegally occupied by the petitioner, with further observation that petitioner had failed to produce any documentary evidence in respect of ownership of the house in question---Complainant was one of the legal heirs of the woman, in whose name the property was allotted by concerned authorities and complaianant claimed to be in possession of the property in question since the time of allotment---Petitioner had annexed certain mutation entries, whereby, property in question was transferred in his name, while complainant had placed documents on record which revealed that civil litigation was pending between complainant and legal heirs of another person, concerning the property in question, from which it tentatively appeared that complainant was in possession of disputed property, but fact that whether complainant was dispossessed illegally or forcibly was yet to be established during course of trial---Trial Court exercised powers under S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, without initiation of the trial, without sending notices to the petitioner and without affording him any opportunity of being heard---Petitioner being in possession of the disputed property had a right to be heard, before an order for his dispossession was made---Trial Court, while passing order for restoration of possession in favour of complainant, made reliance on report of S.H.O. of the area which was different and not from the concerned area---S.H.O. was arrayed as respondent in the complaint, and for that reason Trial Court had made an error and ignored the requirement of law---Order of restoration of possession made by Trial Court in favour of complainant being in contravention of relevant provisions of law, same was set aside---Revision petition was accepted, in circumstances.