IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE AMIR HANI MUSLIM 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED 
MR. JUSTICE MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 41 OF 2008 & CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2054 OF 
2007 & 1208 OF 2015 
(On appeal against the judgments dated 15.01.2008, 19.1.2007 & 17.06.2014 passed by 
the Lahore High Court, Lahore & Multan Benches in Writ Petition Nos. 9357/2007, 
11952/2006 & 11963/2010) 
 
1. 
Mst. Gulshan Bibi etc 
 
 
 
(In CP 41/2008) 
 
 
2. 
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary 
 
Law & Justice etc  
 
 
 
(In CA 2054/2007) 
 
3. 
Muhammad Siraj ud Din Khan 
 
(In CA 1208/2015) 
  
 
 
     
 
 
 
… Petitioners/Appellants 
 
VERSUS 
 
1. 
Muhammad Sadiq etc 
 
 
(In CP 41/08 & CA 1208/15) 
 
2. 
Zahoor Ahmed etc  
 
 
(In CA 2054/2007) 
…Respondents 
 
 
IN CIVIL PETITION NO. 41/2008 
 
For the Petitioners: 
Mr. Muhammad Aslam Zar, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Sardar Abdul Razzaq Khan, ASC 
 
For the Respondent (1): N.R. 
 
 
IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2054/2007 
 
 
 
 
For the Appellants: 
 Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, DAG 
 
For Respondents (1-6, 9-10): Ex-parte 
 
 
IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1208/2015 
 
For the Appellant:  
Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh, AOR 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 41 OF 2008 AND CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2054 OF 2007 
AND 1208 OF 2015 
2
For the Respondents: 
N.R. 
 
 
For the Federation: 
Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, DAG 
 
For Govt of Punjab: 
Mr. Mudassar Khalid Abbasi, AAG 
 
For Govt of Sindh:  
Mr. Sarwar Khan, Add. A.G 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Abdul Jabbar Qureshi, AAG 
 
Date of Hearing:  
15.06.2016 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
FAISAL ARAB, J. - The legal question before this larger bench 
to settle is whether anyone who commits the offence described in 
Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 can be prosecuted 
as held by this Court in the cases of Muhammad Akram Vs. 
Muhammad Yousaf (2009 SCMR 1066), Mumtaz Hussain Vs. Dr. 
Nasir Khan (2010 SCMR 1254) and Shahabuddin Vs. The State (PLD 
2010 SC 725), hereinafter referred to as the first set of cases or the 
scope and applicability of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is 
restricted and only those can be prosecuted who hold the 
credentials and antecedents of a land grabber or Qabza Mafia i.e. 
those who are known, acknowledged and established property 
grabbers as held by this Court in the case of Bashir Ahmad Vs. 
Additional Sessions Judge (PLD 2010 SC 661) and followed in the 
case of Habibullah Vs. Abdul Manan (2012 SCMR 1533), hereinafter 
referred to as the second set of cases.   
 
2. 
 
We shall examine the ratio of the second set of cases 
first, which as a precondition require that the complaint under 
Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 can only be maintained if the 
accused possesses all the credentials and antecedents of being a 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 41 OF 2008 AND CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2054 OF 2007 
AND 1208 OF 2015 
3
land grabber or member of Qabza Group. The terms ‘land grabbers’ 
or ‘Qabza Group’ or ‘Qabza Mafia’ in ordinary parlance refer to a 
distinct class of offenders who usurp property of others in an 
organized manner. They mostly target unoccupied or deserted 
urban properties belonging to the Federal Government, the 
Provincial Governments, Municipal authorities, autonomous or 
semi-autonomous bodies, Trusts or Waqfs and at times even 
properties belonging to private persons. By resorting to various 
forms of fraud and forgery the professional land grabbers or Qabza 
Mafia first get the targeted property transferred in the official 
records in the name of a person of their confidence and then create 
third party interest thereon. In doing so the face of the professional 
land grabbers or Qabza Group remains hidden. They indulge in land 
grabbing through their proxy so that the real beneficiary of land 
grabbing could not be identified. With every new act of illegal 
dispossession the face of the proxy keeps changing. In every case 
where ratio of the second set of cases is to be applied it would be 
incumbent upon the complainant to establish that the accused 
belongs to a land Mafia or Qabza Group. The accused in reply 
almost invariably is not going to admit that he holds such a record. 
The denial of such a plea would serve as best defence against his 
prosecution. In all such cases extrinsic evidence would be required 
to establish that the accused possesses all the credentials of a 
professional land grabber or Qabza Mafia. Such kind of evidence 
would certainly not be relatable to the incident reported in the 
complaint but to an offence of illegal dispossession committed by 
the accused sometime in the past in relation to some property. This 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 41 OF 2008 AND CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2054 OF 2007 
AND 1208 OF 2015 
4
evidence would depend on the testimony of persons who may not be 
known to the complainant at all. The only alternative to this would 
be that in some judicial pronouncement, the accused has already 
been declared to be a known, acknowledged and established land 
grabber or member of Qabza Group. Anything short of classifying 
the accused as a known, acknowledged and established land 
grabber would not be sufficient to prosecute him under the 
provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The complainant 
would thus be required to cross this hurdle first before the court 
assumes jurisdiction over the accused with regard to the incident 
reported in the compliant. Failure to do so would result in the 
dismissal of the case without even examining the truthfulness of the 
complaint that was filed for adjudication. Thus in every case where 
the ratio of the second set of cases is to be applied, the existence of 
judicially acceptable material on the record would be necessary to 
satisfy the Court that the accused possesses all the credentials and 
antecedents of being a member of ‘land grabbers’ or ‘Qabza Group’ 
or ‘Qabza Mafia’ otherwise the complaint filed under the provisions 
of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 would not be maintainable. In 
putting such a restricted interpretation on the scope and 
applicability of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the second set of 
cases has cast an arduous burden upon the complainant to 
establish existence of a fact of which he may not even have any 
knowledge or the means or the capability to prove it in a court of 
law.  
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 41 OF 2008 AND CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2054 OF 2007 
AND 1208 OF 2015 
5
3. 
 
Now the question that needs to be examined is whether 
the Legislature did intend that the complainant shall first establish 
that the accused possesses the credentials or antecedents of land 
grabbers or Qabza Group before his complaint could be entertained 
by the court. In order to examine this question we shall first 
examine the contents of the Working Paper for the reason that the 
Working Paper has been discussed in one of the impugned 
judgments, reasoning of which was adopted by this Court in the 
second set of cases. This Working Paper was prepared by the law 
ministry at the time of laying the Illegal Dispossession Bill before the 
parliament. It was captioned “The object of the proposed Bill is to 
provide deterrent punishment to the land grabbers and Qabza Group 
and to provide speedy justice and effective and adequate relief to the 
victims dispossessed of immovable property by unlawful means….”  
The terms ‘land grabbers’ and ‘Qabza Group’ appearing in the 
Working Paper were heavily relied upon in one of the impugned 
judgments in reaching the conclusion that the accused must 
possess the credentials or antecedents of land grabbers or Qabza 
Group before his complaint could be entertained by the court. 
However, the terms ‘land grabbers’ and ‘Qabza Group’ appearing in 
the Working Paper did not find their way in any provision of the 
Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. Not even in its preamble. Only the 
term ‘property grabbers’ was used in the preamble and even this 
term was not used anywhere else in the entire enactment. By mere 
use of the term ‘property grabbers’ in the preamble, the scope and 
applicability of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was restricted by 
the second set of cases to a certain class of offenders and the relief 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 41 OF 2008 AND CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2054 OF 2007 
AND 1208 OF 2015 
6
sought in the complaint was held not to be available to the victims 
of illegal dispossession against those who do not fall under such 
class of offenders. In our society the acts of illegal dispossession are 
largely committed at the behest of the persons who are rich, 
powerful 
feudal 
lords, 
politicians, 
builders, 
government 
functionaries or the persons who head large communities and on 
account of their influence and power are placed in domineering 
positions either over their fellow community members or over less 
powerful communities living in the area of their influence. In terms 
of the ratio of the second set of cases not every influential, rich or 
powerful person who illegally grabs someone’s property is amenable 
to the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 unless, as a 
condition precedent, he possesses the credential and antecedents of 
‘land grabber’ or ‘Qabza Group’ or ‘Qabza Mafia’. We may mention 
here that before the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was enacted, 
any person who illegally dispossessed a lawful owner or occupier 
used to face either civil litigation which takes years together before 
justice is delivered. Even where criminal proceedings were lodged 
they were initiated under the provisions of Pakistan Penal Code in 
the court of a Magistrate, which too did not prove to be an effective 
remedy. Thus until the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 came into 
effect, the acts of dispossession continued to take place without any 
efficacious, effective and speedy remedy made available to the 
victims. Such acts at times translated into serious criminal offences 
including murders. To suppress such mischief was the main object 
that was to a greater extent achieved through Illegal Dispossession 
Act, 2005.  
CIVIL PETITION NO. 41 OF 2008 AND CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2054 OF 2007 
AND 1208 OF 2015 
7
4. 
 
The legislature while enacting a special law for awarding 
punishment for a crime, in its wisdom, may or may not describe any 
particular category of persons who could be prosecuted. Where a 
special law after making a particular act an offence also describes 
the category of persons who could only be prosecuted then unless 
such person falls within the described category, he cannot be 
prosecuted. Where the special law only describes the offence or a set 
of offences and seeks to punish any person and every person who is 
found to have committed the described offence then the terms like 
‘anyone’, ‘any person’ ‘whoever’ and ‘whosoever’ are used for the 
offenders in order to include all offenders without any distinction. In 
such a case, the offender may belong to any class of offenders, he as 
an accused can be prosecuted under such law. It can be seen that 
the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 has defined the offence but has 
not categorized any class of offenders who only could be prosecuted 
for committing the defined offence. This is evident from the 
provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Illegal 
Dispossession Act, 2005 which read as follows:  
 
Section 3 (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 owners or occupier of such 
property.   
 
Section 3(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 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 41 OF 2008 AND CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2054 OF 2007 
AND 1208 OF 2015 
8
be compensated in accordance with the provision of section 
544-A of the Code.  
(Underlining is ours to lay emphasis) 
 
 
5. 
 
A bare reading of sub-sections (1) of Section 3 the Illegal 
Dispossession Act, 2005 shows that terms like dispossess, grab, 
control or occupy have been used which clearly mean that illegal 
dispossession in all forms have been made an offence and by the 
use of the terms ‘no one’ and ‘whoever’ in sub-sections (1) and (2) of 
Section 3, anyone and everyone who commits such an offence was 
made liable for punishment. The very use of the terms like ‘no one’ 
and ‘whoever’ are clearly intended to convey the widest possible 
meaning for the offenders. Thus without any distinction any person 
who illegally dispossesses, grabs, controls or occupies property of a 
lawful owner or occupier shall be liable for prosecution under the 
provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The second set of 
cases has however restricted the scope and application of the Illegal 
Dispossession Act, 2005 to a particular class of offenders only i.e. 
those who possess the credentials or antecedents of being ‘land 
grabbers’ or Qabza Group by placing reliance on the term ‘property 
grabbers’ that appears in the preamble of the Illegal Dispossession 
Act, 2005. From the mere use of the term ‘property grabbers’ in the 
preamble one cannot reach the conclusion that the legislature 
intended that a complainant must first establish that the accused 
possesses the credentials or antecedents of being a professional 
land grabber or member of a Qabza Group in order to maintain his 
complaint under the said Act. The term ‘property grabber’ can be 
construed to refer to anyone who has committed the act of grabbing 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 41 OF 2008 AND CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2054 OF 2007 
AND 1208 OF 2015 
9
someone’s property illegally. Limiting the scope and application of 
the provisions of the main enactment to a particular class of 
offenders and that too on the basis of a term used in the preamble 
would not only deflect the Court to go into issues which are not 
subject matter of the complaint that is before it but at the same 
time such an interpretation would violate the cardinal principle of 
the statutory construction that where the language of the 
substantive provision of an enactment is clear and not open to any 
doubt then the preamble cannot be used to curtail or enlarge its 
scope. Thus where the enactment is clear and unambiguous, the 
preamble cannot be used to undermine the clear meaning of the 
provisions of the Act or give it a different meaning. Only where the 
object or meaning of an enactment is not clear, the preamble may 
be resorted to in order to explain it. So the preamble is to be 
resorted only to explain and give meaning to any provision of the 
enactment where its language is open to doubt or is ambiguous or 
susceptible to more than one meaning. In the presence of the 
general terms like ‘anyone’ or ‘whoever’ that have been used to 
describe the offender, which are clear and wide in their application, 
the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 cannot be confined 
to any particular class of offenders.  
 
6. 
 
It would also be not out of place to mention here that 
reference to Legislative history is permissible only as an aid to 
construction of legislation which is ambiguous or obscure or the 
literal meaning of which leads to an absurdity i.e. from the text of a 
statute, the court is unable to decipher the real intent of the 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 41 OF 2008 AND CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2054 OF 2007 
AND 1208 OF 2015 
10
Legislature. Where the text is clear and there exists no ambiguity, 
resort to the legislative history may actually be counter-productive. 
This is because legislative history contains sporadic accounts and 
arguments made by the parliamentarians and the final outcome of 
debates and arguments made in the parliament could be much 
different. Therefore, the real intention of the parliament is to be first 
and foremost ascertained from the provisions of the enactment itself 
and frequent resort to the legislative history is not warranted. In 
this regard the case of Pepper Vs. Hart [1992] 3 WLR 1032, a 
judgment 
from 
English 
jurisdiction, 
can 
be 
referred 
with 
considerable advantage. 
 
7. 
 
From what has been discussed above it is evident that 
no provision of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 imposes any 
precondition on the basis of which a particular class of offenders 
could only be prosecuted. The Act aims at granting efficacious relief 
to lawful owners and occupiers in case they are dispossessed by 
anyone without lawful authority. Section 3(1) of the said Act by 
using the terms ‘anyone’ and ‘whoever’ for the offenders clearly 
warns all persons from committing the offence described therein 
and when found guilty by the court are to be punished without 
attaching any condition whatsoever as to the maintainability of the 
complaint. So all that the Court has to see is whether the accused 
nominated in the complaint has entered into or upon the property in 
dispute in order to dispossess, grab, control, or occupy it without 
any lawful authority. Nothing else is required to be established by 
the complainant as no precondition has been attached under any 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 41 OF 2008 AND CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2054 OF 2007 
AND 1208 OF 2015 
11
provision of the said Act which conveys the command of the 
legislature that only such accused would be prosecuted who holds the 
credentials and antecedents of ‘land grabbers’ or ‘Qabza Group’. It 
does not appeal to reason that for commission of an offence reported it 
the complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 the 
Legislature would intent to punish only those who hold history of 
committing a particular kind of offence but would let go an accused 
who though has committed the offence reported in the complaint but 
does not hold the record of committing a particular kind of offence. In 
our view trial of a case is to be relatable to the property which is 
subject matter of the complainant, pure and simple. Any past history 
of the accused with regard to his act of dispossession having no nexus 
with the complaint cannot be taken into consideration in order to 
decide whether the accused stands qualified to be awarded a sentence 
under the Act or not. Once the offence reported in the complaint 
stands proved against the accused then he cannot escape punishment 
under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.  
 
8. 
 
In view of the above discussion we conclude that in any 
proceedings initiated under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the 
issues which fall for decision would be whether the offence against a 
lawful owner or occupier, as described in the complaint, has taken 
place and whether it is the accused who has committed it without 
any lawful authority. Anyone found committing the offence 
described in Section 3 would be amenable to prosecution under the 
provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and no past record of 
the accused needs to be gone into by the court.  
CIVIL PETITION NO. 41 OF 2008 AND CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2054 OF 2007 
AND 1208 OF 2015 
12
 
9. 
 
In view of the above conclusion, we hold that the first 
set of cases Muhammad Akram Vs. Muhammad Yousaf (2009 SCMR 
1066), Mumtaz Hussain Vs. Dr. Nasir Khan (2010 SCMR 1254) and 
Shahabuddin Vs. The State (PLD 2010 SC 725) is good law whereas 
the finding arrived at in the second set of cases i.e. in the case of 
Bashir Ahmad Vs. Additional Sessions Judge (PLD 2010 SC 661) and 
followed in the case of Habibullah Vs. Abdul Manan (2012 SCMR 
1533) which restrict the scope and applicability of the Illegal 
Dispossession Act, 2005 is not a good law. Resultantly, Civil Petition 
No. 41 of 2008 is converted into appeal and allowed. Likewise, Civil 
Appeal Nos. 2054/2007 and 1208/2015 are also allowed. The 
impugned judgments in all three connected cases are set aside and 
the cases are remanded back to the High Court for their decision 
afresh on merits in accordance with law.  
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
JUDGE 
JUDGE 
JUDGE 
JUDGE 
 
Islamabad, the 
Announced on _____________ by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Faisal Arab 
 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram