The most important part of the Section 3 and 4 Unlawful Settlement Act of 2005 was that the owner or occupier of the property should be disposed of and if the owner or occupier does not accept the charge of extortion or forcible possession of the offender. ? In the present case, the complaint itself was silent and did not disclose any settlement case, concluding that there was no crime of forcible encroachment and occupation, after this property the Syed Act clause would not apply. In the exercise of jurisdiction under the Warranty Unlawful Disposition Act, 2005, the accused pleaded that he had been in possession of the property since 1987 as the tenant of one of the original proprietors' legal heirs. It presented evidence of the formation of utility bills, electricity, telephone and needle gas, as well as the rent receipts that were submitted to the concerned Rent Controller's Court through all the facts, along with the complainant's confession. That the accused was enjoying the seizure. It was enough to construct the property long before the acquisition of the property that there had been no settlement for years before the accused occupied the premises and declared it long before. The provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Settlement Act, 2005, provisions of 2005, did not appear in the circumstances of the trial, rightly concluding that the complaint was not sustained.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
