A Judicial Magistrate Does not Have Jurisdiction U/S 145 of the Cr.PC to Restore Possession of a Property

Share

A Judicial Magistrate Does not Have Jurisdiction U/S 145 of the Cr.PC to Restore Possession of a Property: Justice Athar Minallah.ย 

Section 145 of the Cr.P.C is related to restoration of possession of a property when one party dispossess another party from possession of a property which the other party had when he was being dispossessed. This section empowers the Executive Magistrate under the Baluchistan Act, 2010, to take cognisance when a compliant is filed with regard to restoration of possession of a property by a party who was in possession.

The Supreme Court has ruled in a recent case that a judicial magistrate is not conferred on jurisdiction under section 145 of the Cr.P.C to adjudicate a dispute of possession of a property. The Court further asserted that restoration of possession is purely and predominantly an administrative and executive function in nature not a judicial. Hence, it is better to be vested in an executive rather than the judicial branch of the state.

The Court further held that despite such power an executive magistrate cannot dilate upon the question of lawful title or right of possession. He is only empowered to restore the possession which was taken away illegally and improperly. The power under the said section is not judicial in nature, hence neither can a judicial magistrate taken cognisance nor can an executive magistrate execute it judicially. It shall be done in an executive manner not a judicial.

The Court has further clarified in his judgment that dispossession from a property is not enough to attract the vires of the said section. It shall be coupled with apprehension of imminent danger of breach of peace concerning a land or water or the boundaries thereon.

Click to Download

c.p._116_2020_16112023

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top