2009 PCrLJ 491 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

MUHAMMAD RIAZ AHMED KHAN VS IMRAN ABDULLAH PLD 2007 Lah. 231, PLD 2007 SC 423, PLD 2008 Kar. 369, PLD 2008 Kar. 400, PLD 2008 Kar. 518, Illegal Dispossession Act 2005--3 , Illegal Dispossession Act 2005--8 , Ss. 3 & 8---Respondent tenant, after having been lawfully ejected from the shop of the petitioners, had again taken over the possession of the shop illegally by breaking open its lock---Application filed by petitioner under S.3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, against the respondents had been dismissed by Sessions Court with the observation that Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was meant for only land grabbers and was not applicable to any other sort of dispossession---Validity---Sessions Court had misinterpreted the judgment reported as PLD 2007 Lah. 231 and the words "property grabbers" mentioned in the preamble of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---Sessions Court had also failed to appreciate the meaning of the words "owner or occupier" given in the said Act and had further failed to go through S.3 of the same Act---Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, had been promulgated to protect the rights of the owner and of the lawful occupant of the property, as against the unauthorized and illegal occupants and all cases of illegal occupants were covered by the said Act, except a few cases where such issue had already been taken up---Person not in legal possession would be possessing the property illegally and would fall within the ambit of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---Such type of activities as complained by the petitioner, if allowed, would deprive the orders or writs issued by the Courts of their sanctity and immediately after eviction of a person through legal process, he would reoccupy the same property---Approach of Sessions Court was totally misconceived and contrary to law---Impugned order was consequently set aside and the case was remanded to District and Sessions Judge to proceed with the matter and decide the rights of parties and their liability to punishment in true spirit of law---Petition was allowed accordingly.