Find a Lawyer

--Art. 9‑Possession of property‑Parties admittedly fighting on civil and criminal fronts and factum of enquiry with regard to possession of property in dispute found within jurisdiction of Magistrate taking cognizance who found acting in accordance with law‑Sessions Judge in revision, setting aside order of Magis trate‑‑Order, held, without lawful authority, set aside, in circum stances.

Jehangir A. Jhoja for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 3.

Shahzad Jahangir, S. Fayyaz Hussain Kadri and Mirra Hafiz‑ur‑Rehman for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing : 10th March, 1982.

Land measuring 270 kanals 11 marlas situated in Mauza Moota Singh Wala is the subject‑matter of dispute between Mrs. Betty Alice Giras and Matiul Haq Khalid. The former claims ownership and posses sion on the basis of a registered sale‑deed as well as mutation in the revenue record while the latter on the strength of a decree passed by a Civil Court followed by mutation. Relations between the parties became so strained that on 27th April, 1981 A. S. I. Muhammad Sharif, Police Station Barki, submitted a complaint under. section 145, Cr. P. C. recom mending thereby to take proceedings in the matter as there was apprehension of breach of peace. The Illaqa Magistrate took cognizance. By order dated 28th April, 1981 he summoned the parties for 30th April, 1981 with a direction to submit written statements regarding their respective claims. A copy of the order was also ordered to be affixed at or near the land in dispute so that the parties became aware of the proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C.

On 29th April, 1981, another order was passed by the Magistrate. This time again a complaint was submitted by the Station House Officer, Police Station Barki. He requested for attachment of the disputed land. Tie Magistrate concerned observed that in view of the emergency the land in question be attached pending decision of the proceedings. Since the crops growing on the disputed land were subject to speedy and natural decoy, he gave the custody of all such crops for sale etc. to the Tehsildar (Saddar) Lahore. He was directed to maintain the accounts of the proceeds and hand over the same to the party found entitled to it after the decision of the proceedings.

Order dated 28th April, 1981 and 29th April, 1981 were challenged by Matiul Haq Khalid in revision before the Sessions Judge. The revision was accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 14th November, 1981 order dated 29th April, 1981 was set aside.

Mrs. Betty Alice Giras felt aggrieved. She filed this petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at full length. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the validity of the impugned order on the ground that the same had been passed in violation of section 145, C r. P. C., as such it is without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the interlocutory order passed in C. R. No. 880/81, whereby the proceedings before the trial Court had been stayed by this Court on 15th September, 1981, the Additional Sessions Judge had rightly accepted the revi sion. Learned counsel supported the impugned order and submitted that the present jurisdiction under the Provisional Constitution Order was not available to the petitioner.

Admittedly, litigation is going on between the parties in the Civil Courts as well as Criminal. I have also gone through the Civil Revision (No. 880/81) as well as Annexure R‑7 placed on record by the respondent. This Civil Revision was against the order dated 30th June, 1981 passed by Additional District Judge. Parties to the Civil Revision were "Abdul Majeed Khan v. Sultan Jahan Begum etc." It has nothing to do with the proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. pending before the Magistrate con cerned nor could the interlocutory order be construed as the stay order against those proceedings. This order does not stop the Magistrate from proceeding under section 145, Cr. P. C. provided he acts in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the aforesaid section. The measure is pre ventive. In these proceedings the Magistrate is not permitted to deter mine the title of the parties which is to be done by a different forum and I understand that is being done. The enquiry which the Magistrate is to hold regarding possession and other items is of discrete nature. He is further empowered to act in case of an emergency.

As already observed, the parties are fighting on different fronts Civil as well as Criminal. The factum of enquiry with regard to the possession is within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate who has taken the cognizance I am not expected to give any finding on these points. All that I have gbt to do is to make sure whether the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in revision was in accordance with law or that of the Magistrate.

I have no hesitation in holding that the Magistrate acted in accord once with law. He resorted to the procedure laid in section 145, Cr. P. C. Thereby he did not commit any error of law which could justify interference in the interim orders passed by him. The impugned order as such without lawful authority and of no legal effect The same is accordingly held to be null and void.

Parties are left to bear their own costs.

M. Y. H. Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.