Summary: (a) **Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005)** ----S. 3—Scope and applicability—Familial and permissive possession—Mens rea requirement—Interpretation of “forcibly” and “wrongfully dispossess”—Held, the Act was enacted as a special penal measure to protect lawful owners and occupiers from land grabbers and forcible ousters, not to criminalise domestic or intra-family residence disputes—Complaint by father against his adult children for alleged dispossession of residence—Material on record disclosed long-standing permissive possession, absence of “force,” and lack of mens rea to dispossess—Element of “force” under S. 3(3) was not established as complainant himself had voluntarily left the premises—High Court and Trial Court orders admitting complaint and issuing bailable warrants were based on an erroneous view of the statute—Such familial disputes fall within civil domain—Civil remedies like suits for possession, partition, injunction, or recourse to domestic-violence frameworks were appropriate remedies, not criminal prosecution under the Act. (b) **Constitution of Pakistan (1973)** ----Arts. 9, 14, 31 & 35—Interpretation of rights to dignity, family, and privacy—Constitutional ethos reinforces preservation of family unity and mutual respect—Penal statutes must be applied cautiously to avoid fracturing family structures and over-criminalisation—Application of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 in intra-household contexts without clear evidence of force or intent would distort the statute’s purpose and spirit—Court emphasised constitutional protection of the family as a fundamental institution and the moral duty to respect and maintain parents and elders. (c) **Sindh Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act, 2013** ----Ss. 9 & 19—Protective framework for vulnerable household members—Complementary remedies—Held, daughter’s residence within shared family home is protected under domestic-violence law—Removal or exclusion from residence must follow due process before competent civil or family court—Criminalisation under the Illegal Dispossession Act was inappropriate where protective and civil remedies existed—Government of Sindh directed to ensure constitution and full functionality of Protection Committees under S. 19 within ninety days. (d) **Comparative Jurisprudence** ----Maintenance and protection of parents and elders—Comparative statutory approaches in India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Singapore, Canada, and the United States discussed—Illustrated that balanced, civil-first, and conciliatory frameworks for parental maintenance and household protection prevent family disintegration and promote social welfare—Court urged provincial governments to harmonise domestic-violence and senior-citizen statutes to provide uniform dignity-based protection to vulnerable dependants. (e) **Provincial Legislative Directions** ----Punjab—Government instructed to consider expanding definition of “aggrieved person” in its domestic-violence law to include all vulnerable persons and to enact a Senior Citizens Welfare Code establishing maintenance councils, welfare funds, and summary tribunals for parental care and support—Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Law Departments also directed to review analogous measures. Cited Cases: • Niaz Ahmed v. Aijaz Ahmed PLD 2024 SC 1152 • Mst. Gulshan Bibi v. Muhammad Sadiq PLD 2016 SC 769 • Shaikh Muhammad Naseem v. Mst. Farida Gul 2016 SCMR 1931 • Mst. Inayatan Khatoon v. Muhammad Ramzan 2012 SCMR 229 • Habibullah v. Abdul Manan 2012 SCMR 1533 (overruled) • Hina v. Province of Sindh PLD 2019 Sindh 363 (g) **Disposition —** Petition converted into appeal and allowed—Orders of Trial Court and High Court taking cognisance under S. 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and issuing bailable warrants set aside—Complaint dismissed—Owner father’s right of residence upheld—Daughter’s residential protection maintained subject to due process—Both parties directed not to obstruct each other’s ingress or residence—Government of Sindh and other provincial authorities directed to implement statutory reforms as specified—No order as to costs.

Summary: Illegal disposition requirements ---- (a) Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 —- Ss. 3, 4 & 5 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Ss. 435 & 439 — Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A Maintainability of complaint — Concurrent civil litigation — Jurisdiction of trial court — Scope of inquiry under the 2005 Act — Remedial purpose — Complaint under Ss. 3 & 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was dismissed by trial court without trial, solely on grounds that (i) petitioner and respondent were co-owners in un-partitioned land, and (ii) civil litigation was pending — High Court upheld dismissal relying on judgments in Habib Ullah v. Abdul Manan (2012 SCMR 1533) and Bashir Ahmed v. ASJ Faisalabad (PLD 2010 SC 661) — Held, both precedents had been declared "not good law" by Gulshan Bibi v. Muhammad Sadiq (PLD 2016 SC 769) — Dismissal of complaint solely due to pending civil litigation or co-ownership status is contrary to established law — Sessions court is duty-bound to determine from available material whether unlawful dispossession occurred, even in presence of parallel civil proceedings — Complaint under 2005 Act is maintainable unless trial court determines that it is being misused to convert a civil dispute into criminal liability — Dual-track nature of civil and criminal liabilities underlies the Act’s independent remedial character. Cited Cases: • Gulshan Bibi v. Muhammad Sadiq (PLD 2016 SC 769) • Muhammad Naseem v. Fareeda Gul (2016 SCMR 1931) • Abdul Majeed v. The State (2017 SCMR 390) • Criminal Petitions No. 66-K & 67-K of 2024 (2024 SCP 243) Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed; matter remanded to trial court for determination in accordance with 2005 Act. (b) Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 —- S. 5(1), Second Proviso Scope of inquiry — Role of trial court — Failure to investigate key factual questions — Effect — Trial court failed to investigate core factual issue of actual possession prior to alleged dispossession, despite calling for police report — Inquiry report submitted under order dated 19.12.2020 was deficient and failed to address possession status of complainant prior to occurrence — Held, trial court should have invoked second proviso to S. 5(1) and directed further inquiry — Instead, it erroneously dismissed the complaint without trial — Jurisdictional error committed by trial court by not determining whether alleged illegal dispossession actually occurred. Judicial Direction: On remand, trial court must conduct inquiry in accordance with 2005 Act and determine (i) if petitioner was dispossessed, and (ii) effect of delay, if any, in filing complaint. (c) Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 —- S. 3 — Scope and elements — Applicability test Conditions for application — Legal test from Mumtaz Hussain case reaffirmed — Four elements required for S. 3 offence: Property must be immovable; Complainant must be lawful owner or in lawful possession; Accused must have unlawfully entered the property; Such entry must be with intent to dispossess — Held, trial and High Court failed to properly apply this test — No findings rendered as to actual possession prior to occurrence — Summary dismissal without factual determination was unlawful. Cited Case: • Mumtaz Hussain v. Dr. Nasir Khan (2010 SCMR 1254) (d) Criminal Jurisdiction — Civil proceedings pending — Concurrent remedy — No bar on maintainability Dual-track proceedings — Civil litigation does not preclude prosecution under 2005 Act — Held, pendency of civil litigation regarding same immovable property does not nullify jurisdiction of criminal court under the 2005 Act — Criminal liability must be adjudicated on its own merits and cannot be defeated by citing pending civil suits — A person cannot take law into own hands, dispossess lawful occupier, and avoid criminal prosecution merely due to co-existing civil claims. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Naseem v. Fareeda Gul (2016 SCMR 1931) • Abdul Majeed v. The State (2017 SCMR 390) • Criminal Petitions No. 66-K & 67-K of 2024 (2024 SCP 243) Final Disposition: Leave to appeal granted. Petition converted to appeal and allowed. Judgments of High Court and trial court set aside. Matter remanded to trial court to proceed under 2005 Act, assess legality of alleged dispossession, and determine effect of delay in filing complaint.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S. 100, O. XVII, R. 3---Second appeal---Concurrent findings of facts---Scope---Petitioner’s complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and subsequent civil suit were dismissed for non-prosecution and failure to produce evidence---Trial Court dismissed petitioner’s adjournment application, noting repeated opportunities granted earlier, and proceeded to decide the suit under O. XVII, R. 3, CPC due to absence of petitioner and his counsel---Suit dismissed for lack of evidence---First and Second Appellate Courts upheld dismissal, recording petitioner’s non-serious attitude---Held, that scope under S. 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law and does not warrant interference with concurrent findings of fact unless there is misreading or non-reading of evidence---Petitioner failed to raise or substantiate any such ground before lower courts---Ground that petitioner’s side was not formally closed was not raised before Appellate Courts and hence could not be agitated for the first time before Supreme Court---No illegality, infirmity or misapplication of law found---Leave to appeal refused.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----O. XVII, R. 3---Dismissal of suit---Failure to produce evidence---Last opportunity availed and further adjournment denied due to absence of party and counsel---Adjournment application dismissed on ground of repeated delays and lack of due diligence---Trial Court within its jurisdiction to proceed under O. XVII, R. 3 and decide the case on merits---Held, Order XVII, Rule 3 CPC empowers Court to decide suit if party fails to produce evidence despite opportunity---Such decision not violative of due process if party had been afforded adequate chances---No indulgence warranted in absence of bona fide effort by petitioner to prosecute claim.Disposition: Petition dismissed; leave to appeal refused.Cited Legislation:• Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 100, O. XVII, R. 3• Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Illegal Dispossession: --- Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, Ss. 3, 4, 7 & 8 --- Co-ownership and constructive possession --- Scope of the Act --- The petitioner alleged that the respondents had forcibly dispossessed him from a 12-marla property purchased via a registered sale deed. The trial court convicted the respondents under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, but the High Court set aside the conviction on the grounds that the respondents were co-owners of the property and that no formal partition had been effected. Held, a co-owner is deemed to be in constructive possession of every inch of the joint property unless an official partition occurs. The Act applies only where there is clear evidence of unlawful dispossession, and it does not cover disputes between co-owners unless exclusive ownership is proven. (b) Co-Ownership & Property Law: --- Joint ownership --- Right to possession in absence of partition --- The disputed property was part of Khasra Nos. 824, 825, and 826, which were jointly owned by multiple co-sharers. The Tehsildar’s report confirmed that no demarcation had been finalized, and partition proceedings were pending before the civil court. Held, where ownership is joint and indivisible, one co-owner cannot claim unlawful dispossession by another without proving exclusive title through partition proceedings. Reliance placed on Shaikh Muhammad Naseem v. Mst. Farida Gul (2016 SCMR 1931) and Niaz Ahmed v. Aijaz Ahmed (PLD 2024 SC 1152), which affirmed that the Act does not apply to intra-co-owner disputes. (c) Criminal Law: --- Acquittal --- Presumption of innocence --- Limited scope of interference by appellate courts --- The High Court found no clear evidence of forcible dispossession and determined that the respondents' possession was justified as co-owners. Held, an acquitted accused benefits from a double presumption of innocence, and appellate courts do not interfere with acquittals unless the judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or based on a misreading of evidence. No such glaring illegality was found in the High Court's judgment, warranting refusal of leave to appeal. Reliance placed on Muhammad Mansha Kausar v. Muhammad Asghar (2003 SCMR 477). (d) Disposition: Petition dismissed. Leave to appeal refused. Acquittal of respondents upheld. Petitioner may pursue civil remedies before the competent court.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – Section 561-A – Quashment of Criminal Proceedings ---- Scope and Applicability of Section 561-A, Cr.P.C.---Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., are curative in nature and intended to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice---Inherent powers cannot replace alternate remedies provided under Sections 249-A and 265-K, Cr.P.C., but may be invoked in exceptional cases where a clear abuse of process or injustice is apparent---High Court is obligated to examine and decide quashment petitions on merits, particularly when abuse of process is alleged. (b) Abuse of Process – Doctrine and Judicial Interpretation ---- Definition and Judicial Guidelines---The doctrine of abuse of process encompasses unwarranted or irrational use of legal proceedings, including vexatious litigation, harassment, or mala fide intent---Courts must prevent misuse of judicial mechanisms and safeguard the principles of fair play and justice---Summary dismissal of quashment petitions without addressing substantive grounds raised amounts to a failure of judicial duty. (c) Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 – Section 3 & 5 – Investigation and Cognizance ---- Quashment of Proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---Section 3 prohibits illegal occupation, grabbing, or control of immovable property without lawful authority---Section 5 provides the procedure for investigation and cognizance by the trial court---Cognizance by a trial court does not preclude the High Court from exercising its inherent powers under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., to review the legitimacy and fairness of proceedings initiated under the Act. (d) Quashment Petition – Duty of the High Court ---- Obligation to Examine Merits of Quashment Petitions---High Court must not dismiss quashment petitions summarily without considering the grounds raised, particularly where multiple pending civil suits or ongoing civil disputes are involved---Dismissal solely on the ground that cognizance has been taken by the trial court is insufficient and reflects a failure to exercise judicial discretion properly. ----- Cited Cases: Shahnaz Begum v. Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan (PLD 1971 SC 677) R. v. Power ([1994] 1 S.C.R. 601) R. v. Scott ([1990] 3 S.C.R. 979) Disposition: Criminal Petition converted into an appeal and allowed. The impugned order of the High Court was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits after issuing notice to all parties. The High Court is directed to address the grounds raised in the quashment petition comprehensively.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: This case concerns a dispute over a watercourse and path located in a particular piece of land. The petitioner, along with other co-owners, claimed that the respondents had illegally taken possession of the land and blocked access by constructing on it. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. After a trial, the court dismissed the petitioner's complaint and acquitted the respondents. The petitioner then challenged this judgment in the High Court. -----Issues: ----1- Whether the restoration of possession of disputed property can be ordered after the death of an acquitted respondent. ----2- Whether an order for restoration of possession under Section 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, can be passed in the absence of a conviction under Section 3 of the same Act. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that: After the death of the acquitted respondent, the case for criminal charges against him abated, but the question of restoration of possession remained. However, under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, restoration of possession can only be ordered if the accused has been convicted. Since the trial court acquitted the respondents and did not convict them under Sections 2 or 3 of the Act, the court cannot order the restoration of possession. The provisions of the Act are clear in that restoration is contingent upon a conviction. The property in question is jointly owned and not exclusively owned by the petitioner, making it ineligible for protection under the Illegal Dispossession Act, which safeguards private ownership, not joint ownership. Therefore, the trial court’s decision to dismiss the complaint was upheld. As a result, the writ petition was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision to acquit the respondents. -----Citations/Precedents: PLD 2019 Supreme Court 201 Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others v. Abdul Manan and others (2021 SCMR 1871) 2022 SCMR 472 2023 SCMR 1502 Syed Zanon Mian and 4 others v. Mst. Misslunisa (2022 YLR 2252) -----Quote: ''1. After the death of accused nominated under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 who has been acquitted in the complaint from criminal charge, an order for restoration of possession under subsection (1) of section 8 of the ibid Act could not be made. 2. If a nominated accused is convicted under subsection (2) and subsection (3) of section 3 of The Act of 2005 then in such an eventuality, Court would also restore possession to the complainant/owner and as against this if an accused person has not been convicted and punished under section 3 of The Act of 2005 then in such an eventuality, an order for restoration of possession of the property could not be ordered. 3. Whenever the word “and” is used in the Statute, it shall be taken as conjunctive and where word “or” is used, it shall be taken as disjunctive. 4. When the intent of Legislatures is clear from the wording of a statute then the courts are bound to interpret the same in the same manner and also to effectuate and implement the same in line with the intention of the Legislature.''

Summary: Background: The applicants filed a criminal revision application challenging the order dated 12.10.2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Karachi (South), which dismissed their Illegal Dispossession Application No. 590 of 2019. The applicants, claiming to be tenants of disputed shops previously owned by Fatima Ahmed Ali and her heirs, alleged that the respondents had illegally dispossessed them without due process of law. ----Issues: 1- Whether the applicants were lawfully occupying the disputed property. 2- Whether the respondents had illegally dispossessed the applicants in violation of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. 3- Whether the applicants had established the necessary ingredients to invoke the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Lawful Occupation: The court found that the applicants failed to establish a lawful tenancy relationship with the respondents. The applicants admitted that they were aware the respondents were the new owners but continued to pay rent to the previous owners. The absence of any written tenancy agreement with the respondents further weakened their claim. ---Illegal Dispossession: The court observed that the applicants did not provide sufficient details regarding the alleged illegal dispossession. The police report indicated that the stalls set up by the applicants were removed by KMC officials as part of an anti-encroachment operation under the orders of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. ---Ingredients of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005: The court emphasized that for a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the complainant must prove: Lawful ownership or occupation of the property. Unlawful entry by the accused. Intent to dispossess the complainant. Lack of lawful authority by the accused. The applicants failed to satisfy these requirements. The court noted that the applicants' claim of being lawful tenants was not substantiated with adequate evidence, and their possession was previously removed by KMC due to encroachment. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Tariq Khan vs. Khawaja Muhammad Jawad Asami and others (2007 SCMR 818) Adeel Zahoor Malik through Attorney and another vs. Abdul Sattar Shaikh and 2 others (2023 YLR 187) Noorullah vs. Muhammad Farrukh and 4 others (2023 YLR Note 9) Saeed Ahmad vs. Muhammad Naeem and others (2023 YLR Note 83) Mst. Naseem Aziz vs. The State and 7 others (2016 P Cr. L J 786 [Sindh]) Mohammad Haneef vs. Barkat (2021 YLR 732) Asim Siddique Butt vs. Mohammad Khursheed Mirza and 4 others (2017 YLR Note 64 [Lahore]) Allah Rakhio vs. State (2017 YLR Note 409 [Sindh])

Summary: (a) Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005: ----S. 3---Scope and applicability---Dispute between family members---Civil nature of the matter---Effect. The complainant filed a case under S. 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, alleging that the respondents, including her mother and other family members, had illegally dispossessed her from a house that was orally gifted to her by her deceased father. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that the dispute was of a civil nature arising out of inheritance, and that family members cannot be booked under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appellate court upheld this decision, ruling that the Act applies primarily to land grabbers, Qabza groups, and property mafias, and does not cover disputes between family members involving inheritance, ownership claims, or possession issues. The matter was deemed to be within the jurisdiction of civil courts, and the appeal was dismissed accordingly. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----Ss. 435 & 439---Criminal revision converted into appeal---Acquittal of respondents---Interference by appellate court---Principles. The complainant initially filed a criminal revision against the acquittal of the respondents, which was later converted into a criminal appeal. The court reiterated that an appellate court should not interfere in an acquittal unless there is a glaring illegality or misreading of evidence. In the present case, the trial court had examined the material available and found that the matter was civil in nature, falling outside the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appellate court found no illegality, infirmity, or material irregularity in the trial court’s decision and dismissed the appeal, affirming that disputes of possession between family members should be adjudicated through civil litigation rather than criminal proceedings under the Act. (c) Jurisdiction of Special Laws: ----Scope of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---Civil litigation vs. criminal prosecution---Misuse of special laws. The court emphasized that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was enacted to protect lawful owners and occupiers from land grabbers, not to be misused in private disputes over inheritance or ownership among family members. It was held that if possession-related claims involve competing title documents, inheritance disputes, or co-ownership claims, the matter should be decided through civil proceedings, and invoking the Act in such cases is not permissible. The trial court had correctly filtered out the complaint as one lacking criminal intent, preventing the misuse of criminal law for personal property disputes. (d) Burden of Proof in Illegal Dispossession Cases: ----Elements required to establish illegal dispossession---Failure to prove forcible entry and ouster---Effect. To invoke the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the complainant must establish that: (i) the property was immovable; (ii) the complainant was the lawful owner or in lawful possession; (iii) the accused unlawfully entered the property; and (iv) such entry resulted in forcible dispossession or occupation against the complainant’s will. In the present case, the complainant failed to establish these elements, as her claim was based on an alleged oral gift, which was disputed by the respondents. The court held that where possession claims are subject to civil adjudication, a complaint under the Act cannot be entertained. ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed. Trial court’s decision upheld.

Summary: Background: The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Sanghar, under Section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. He was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 10,000, with an additional three months of simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of the fine. The trial court also ordered the appellant to hand over possession of the disputed property to the complainant. The appellant was accused of criminally trespassing and forcibly dispossessing the complainant from his agricultural land on 30-11-2021. The complainant filed a complaint under Sections 3(2) and 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, alleging that the appellant, armed with a deadly weapon, forcibly dispossessed him from his land without any legal right. ----Issues: 1- Whether the conviction under Section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was justified. 2- Whether the compromise between the parties can lead to the appellant's acquittal despite the non-compoundable nature of the offence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Compromise Between Parties: The appellant and the complainant submitted applications for compromise under Sections 345(2) and 345(6) Cr.P.C. The appellant argued that he had already handed over the possession of the disputed property to the complainant, and they had settled their differences amicably. ---State's Position: The Additional Prosecutor General recorded no objection to the compromise. ---Court's Reasoning: The court acknowledged the compromise between the parties and noted that the complainant no longer wished to pursue the case. The court referred to several precedents where compromise in non-compoundable offences was recognized, emphasizing that maintaining peace and harmony between the parties was paramount. The court allowed the appeal based on the compromise between the parties. The impugned judgment dated 15-10-2022 was set aside to the extent of the appellant's conviction and sentence of incarceration and fine. The direction for handing over possession of the disputed property to the complainant was maintained. The appellant was acquitted of the charges by way of compromise, his bail bond was canceled, and the surety was discharged. ----Citations/Precedents: Akhter Hussain vs. SHO Sachal Karachi and 2 others (2020 P Cr L J Note 20) Un-reported order in Criminal Appeal No. S-46/2016 Re: Khamiso Khan alias Riaz vs. Babar Aftab Siyal and another Ijaz and another v. Mst. Manadia (PLD 2016 Pesh. 26) The State v. Irfanullah Qazi (2007 MLD 1269) Abdul Wali (Wali Khan) and 3 others v. Abdul Rashid Arif and 2 others (2013 P Cr. L J 767) Abdul Wahab and 3 others v. Additional Sessions Judge, Okara and 3 others (PLD 2012 Lah. 305) Hussain Bux and others v. The State (PLD 2003 Karachi 127 (DB)) Shahid v. The State and another (2017 YLR Note 81 [Lahore]) Ali Raza and another v. The State and another (PLD 2013 Lahore 651)

Summary: (a) Illegal Dispossession Act (2005) – Ss. 3, 4, 5 – Criminal Procedure Code (1898) – Ss. 342, 544-A Illegal dispossession—Elements of offense—Dispute over inherited property—Complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 alleging forcible occupation of agricultural land—Trial court convicted appellants to 5 years R.I. with fine and compensation—Held, to constitute an offense under the Act, both an unlawful act (actus reus) and criminal intent (mens rea) must be established—Act applies to property grabbers, not family disputes over inheritance—Prosecution failed to prove that appellants were land grabbers or members of a land mafia—Conviction set aside. (b) Civil & Revenue Jurisdiction—Disputed Ownership—Scope of Criminal Proceedings Property disputes—Illegal Dispossession Act applicability—Held, when ownership and possession disputes arise between co-owners, heirs, or parties with competing title claims, civil and revenue courts have exclusive jurisdiction—Criminal courts should not interfere in matters requiring partition, demarcation, or inheritance determination—Trial court erred in convicting appellants instead of referring matter to a civil or revenue court—Reliance placed on Muhammad Ramzan v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 72). (c) Burden of Proof—Failure to Establish Mens Rea—Effect Forcible dispossession—Standard of proof—Prosecution must establish beyond doubt that dispossession was unlawful and intentional—Complainant admitted that accused were co-owners in some portions of the disputed land—Prosecution witnesses failed to rebut defense claim that possession was based on inheritance and private partition—Trial court wrongly convicted appellants without clear evidence of illegal occupation—Conviction set aside—Trial court directed to regulate possession through plenary jurisdiction. ----- Disposition Criminal appeal allowed—Conviction and sentence set aside—Trial court directed to secure property and refer parties to the civil/revenue court for resolution of ownership and possession disputes.