Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 IHC 245303
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Muhammad Abid Raja vs Afzal etc.
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2025 IHC 245303. In this matter between Muhammad Abid Raja and Afzal etc., the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Mr. Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, Honourable Mr. Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir DECISION DATE: 12-DEC-2025 CASE NO: Criminal Appeal-217-2022 CITATION: 2025 IHC 245303 PARTIES: Muhammad Abid Raja VS Afzal etc. LAW / SECTION: under section 3 and 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 SUBJECT: Against Acquittal, Other REMARKS: Complainant files this appeal against acquittal of accused from charge of Illegal Dispossession Act 2005. ============================================================ ORDER SHEET IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Crl. Appeal No. 217 of 2022 Muhammad Abid Raja Versus Afzal and 2 others
Serial No. of order/ proceedings Date of order/ Proceeding Order with signature of Judge, and that of parties or counsel, where necessary. 1 2 3 03.12.2025 M/s. Raja Abid Mehmood and Abdul Hameed Qureshi, Advocates for appellant, Mr. Naseer Anjum Awan Advocate for respondents, Mr. Hanan Din Chaudhary, Special Public Prosecutor for the State, Muhammad Zaman SI with record:
Arbab Muhammad Tahir, J:
(CMA No. 05 of 2025): Pursuant to order dated 03.09.2025, applicant-respondent No.3 seeks permission to place on record certified copies of ex-parte judgment & decree dated 09.09.2016, order thereupon, and judgment dated 02.05.2024, passed in WP No. 1266 of 2020. Allowed.
(CMA No. 06 of 2025): Applicant-appellant seeks permission to place on record copy of judgment dated 02.05.2024 in WP No. 1266 of 2020, interim order dated 30.04.2020 in WP No. 1266 of 2020, copy of memo of WP No. 1266 of 2020, application for setting aside ex-parte judgment & decree dated 09.09.2016, written reply of said application and suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction along-with application for temporary injunction, filed by respondent Afzal against the appellant. Allowed.
2 Crl. Appeal No. 217-2022
(CMA No. 07 of 2025): Dispensation sought for by the applicant-appellant is allowed, subject to all just and legal exception. CM stands disposed of.
(MAIN CASE)
The subject-matter of the lis is land-plot measuring 04-marla, Khewat No. 132, Khatooni No.170, 277 to 279, Khasra No. 152, situated in Haji Ghani Street No.4, revenue estate Soraien, District Islamabad (‘subject property’). This is second round of litigation between the parties that commenced a decade ago in the year 2015 when appellant filed complaint under section 3 and 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (Act of 2005) against the respondents wherein, after full-length trial, the latter were acquitted of the charge vide judgment dated 23.01.2019. The order of acquittal was, however, set aside by this Court vide judgment dated 10.05.2019 and the complaint was remanded to the trial court for its decision afresh after undergoing procedure envisaged in 2nd proviso to sub- section (1) of section 5 of the Act of 2005. In post- remand proceedings, appellant got examined the vendor-Sabir Hussain as PW-7 and Abid Hussain DSP, who prepared police report whereas pursuant to the direction, report was also sought from the concerned revenue officer which was duly tendered as Ex.CW-1/1 by the said witness, who was examined as CW-1 and subjected to cross-examination by the appellant. In pre-remand proceedings, appellant relied upon 07 PWs including himself, the contractor and property dealers. The respondents, in their respective statements, in post and pre-remand proceedings denied the allegation and got examined halqa patwari DW-1. The documentary
3 Crl. Appeal No. 217-2022
evidence comprised of Ex. PA to Ex. PJ, Mark-A to Mark-E. At the conclusion of second round, trial court heard learned counsel for the parties and acquitted the respondents of the charge vide judgment dated 28.03.2022, hence listed appeal.
2. During pendency of the appeal, vide order dated 17.01.2024, the concerned revenue officer was once again directed to inspect the subject property in presence of parties, consult the revenue record and submit report on the following points:-
i- Whether the subject property, from where the appellant was allegedly dispossessed is one and the same whose description is mentioned at Page 4 of sale deed dated 18.05.2012; ii- Whether the appellant had been in possession of the subject property prior to alleged act of dispossession at the hands of respondents; iii- To determine the status of the subject property, whether it has been divided into plots and is no more revenue earning agricultural land; iv- To prepare map of the subject property; v- Status of Khasra No.172 of Shamlat land, and vi- The existing position of the subject property and its possession.
3. Pursuant to direction ibid, Naib Tehsildar Islamabad submitted report and reply to above points is as under:-
4 Crl. Appeal No. 217-2022
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and consulted the record with their able assistance.
5. The report Ex.CW-1/1 tendered by the revenue officer CW-1 Naib Tehsildar during trial reveals that the subject property is situated in Khasra No.172 whereas appellant, as per registered sale deed owns 04-marlas in two distinct Khasra Nos. 152 and 157. The said witness was subjected to cross examination by the appellant but nothing favourable to him has come on record. The second report, submitted before this Court, mentioned above, also does not lend support to the claim of the appellant, instead reiterated the ground situation mentioned in Ex.CW-1/1 with further
5 Crl. Appeal No. 217-2022
clarification that no plot of the description mentioned in the registered sale deed, exists at the spot.
6. The above aspects if seen in conjunction with the fact that the appellant himself remained unable to furnish the details of alleged dispossession with reference to date, time and manner and the fact that none of his witnesses had themselves witnessed the alleged dispossession by the respondents and, above all, the fact that neither the appellant nor did the previous owner PW-8 Sabir made any effort to seek demarcation of the subject property which fact was admitted by PW-8 in his statement, lead to conclude that the appellant had failed to prove the charge against the respondents.
7. It is also a matter of record that after filing of complaint by the appellant, respondents filed civil suit against the appellant wherein proceedings ended in their favour up to this court and Civil Petition No. 3833 of 2024, against the said proceedings, filed by the appellate is sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
8. Having carefully examined the case from every angle, it can safely be observed that appellant’s case lacks essentials to constitute offence in terms of Section 3 of the Act of 2005 i.e. ownership or lawful possession of the subject property and that the respondents entered into or upon the subject property unlawfully. The respondents were acquitted after full length trial and it is well settled that an accused who is acquitted by any Court of competent jurisdiction carries double presumption of innocence, strong and cogent reasons
6 Crl. Appeal No. 217-2022
are required to dislodge such presumption. Reliance is placed upon case laws reported as Jehangir v. Aminullah (2010 SCMR 491), Mst. Anwar Begum v. Akhtar Hussain alias Kaka (2017 SCMR 1710), Zaheer sadiq v. Muhammad Ijaz (2017 SCMR 2007), Muhammad Azam v. The State (2009 SCMR 1232) and Muhammad Shafi alias Kuddoo v. State (2019 SCMR 1045).
9. In view of above, the impugned judgment in the backdrop of evidence besides the law on the subject is well reasoned and does not call for any interference. Consequently, listed appeal fails and is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations contained in the impugned judgment and recorded hereinabove are restricted and shall be construed to the extent of proceedings under the Act of 2005 and shall have no impact upon case of either side before any other appropriate forum.
(Arbab Muhammad Tahir) JUDGE
Announced in open court on ___/12/2025.
JUDGE
Shafqat