3. Prevention of illegal possession of property,
etc.--(1) No one shall enter into or upon any property to dispossess, grab,
control or occupy it without having any lawful authority to do so with the
intention to dispossess, grab, control or occupy the property from owner or
occupier of such property.
(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of the
sub-section (1) shall, without prejudice to any punishment to which he may be
liable under any other law for the time being in force, be punishable with
imprisonment which may extend to ten years and with fine and the victim of the
offence shall also be compensated in accordance with the provisions of Section
544-A of the Code.
COMMENTARY
Illegal Dispossession
Act, 2005 having no retrospective effect may not be applicable to cases of
unauthorized occupants pending before any other forum on the date of
promulgation of Act but if the case not already pending before any other forum
on date of enforcement of Illegal Act, same would fall within the ambit of
Illegal Dispossession Act 2005. Special enactment which has been promulgated to
discourage the land grabbers and to protect the rights of owner and lawful
occupant of the property. All cases of illegal occupants would be covered by
the Act except the cases already pending before any other forum. Illegal
Dispossession Act, is not applicable to an illegal occupant, who was in
occupation of premises prior to date of promulgate of the Act has no substance
purposes was to protect the right of possession of lawful owner or occupier and
not to perpetuate the possession of illegal occupants. Petition was converted
into appeal and case remanded to Sessions Judge. PLJ 2008 SC 38.
Illegal dispossession as
contemplated in S. 3(1) of the Act could be punished only if it had taken place
after promulgation of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. PLJ 2006 Cr.C. (Lah.)
917 + PLD 2006
Petitioner was claiming
a right of way on shamilat deh of which he was not the owner nor he was in
occupation of the same. No case under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, having
been made out. Petition dismissed. 2006 MLD 1942.
If a person has a
grievance as mentioned in Section 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 then the
Court of Session is competent to entertain and try complaint. 2006 YLR 2686.
Object and purpose.
Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was enacted to curb the act of the property
grabbers and to protect the lawful owner and occupiers from their illegal or
forcible dispossession. PLJ 2006 Lah. 1235.
An act of illegal
dispossession could not be punished if it had taken place prior to the
promulgation of the Act. The contention that the act of illegal dispossession
being a continuing offence could be taken cognizance of under the said Act was
without substance. Revision petition dismissed. PLD 2006 Kar. 221.
Sessions Court had
dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 3 of the Illegal
Dispossession Act, 2005, summarily vide impugned order. Validity. Complainant
had leveled a specific allegation that the respondent had only purchased 4
Kanals and 5 Marlas of land, but in excess of his entitlement he had taken
possession of 7 Kanals and 15 Marlas of land owned by the complainant. Court on
filing of the complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, had to first
refer the matter to the SHO concerned for investigation and after receiving his
report to take cognizance and to proceed with the trial. SHO on such reference
did not investigate the matter but only submitted parawise comments to the
private complaint with a vague report, stating that police was not competent to
interfere in the matter. Sessions Court instead of referring the matter again
to the SHO for proper investigation under Section 5(1) of the said Act, had
dismissed the complaint summarily without referring to any document and thus,
failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it in a proper manner. Impugned order
was set aside being not sustainable in law and the case was remanded to the
Sessions Court for decision afresh in accordance with the provisions of the
Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. 2006 P.Cr.L.J. 636
The brief resume of the
Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 clearly shows that it is a special law and the
procedure is also provided therein. However, the provisions of the Code shall
apply to the proceedings under this Act, wherever required. The contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sessions Judge can only try the
complaint under Section 4 if it is routed through a Magistrate following the
provisions of Section 190(2) and 193 , Cr.P.C. are not tenable. Any complaint
which discloses contravention of Section 3 is triable by the Court of Session
as it is clearly provided in Section 4 of the Act. Section 5 further clarifies
the provisions as it requires that upon a complaint, the Court may direct the
officer-in-charge of the police station to investigate and complete
investigation and forward the same within 15 days to the Court. If the Sessions
Judge was not required to entertain complaint or try the complaint directly, he
would not have conferred upon powers mentioned in section 5 of the Act.
Sub-section (2) of Section 5 further provides that on taking cognizance of a
case, the Court shall proceed with the trial on day to day basis, and shall
decide the case within 60 days and for any delay, sufficient reasons shall be
recorded. 2006 YLR 2686.
Complaint against
illegal dispossession was filed. Additional Sessions Judge had called for a
report in respect of alleged illegal dispossession from local police. Police
Officer in his first report had clearly stated that petitioners in fact had
been dispossessed by respondents; whereas in second report same Police Officer
had stated that petitioners had never been dispossessed by respondents and that
respondents had obtained possession of said property from somebody else after
purchasing it from that person. Such glaring change of stance on part of Police
Officer ought to have put Additional Sessions Judge to caution, but that had
not been done in the case as Additional Sessions Judge had decided to rely upon
said second report without even adverting to the infirmities which had put to
doubt its authenticity or reliability. Matter of entertainability of petitioners'
complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 had not been attended to
by Additional Sessions Judge with the seriousness it deserved, which called for
remand of case. Allowing
revision, impugned order was set
aside by the High Court and matter was remanded to Additional Sessions Judge
for passage of a fresh order in respect of entertainability of complaint of
petitioner after satisfying his judicial conscience. 2006 P.Cr.L.J. 1391.
Respondents were in
possession of the said property for the last more than fifteen years and this
fact was also admitted by the petitioner. Keeping in view the said situation,
the learned Additional Sessions Judge had rightly come to the conclusion that
the complaint was not maintainable because the Act, whereunder it had been
filed, was promulgated in the year 2005, Section 3(1) of the Illegal
Dispossession Act, 2005 creates in new offence, the punishment whereof is prescribed
in its sub-section (2). This penal part of the statute is to be interpreted
strictly and an illegal dispossession as contemplated in Section 3(1) can be
punished only if it had taken place after promulgation of the said Act. PLJ
2006 Cr.C. (