The Silent Theft: How “Long Absence Dispossession” Undermines Justice in Pakistan – and Blocks Foreign Investment

Long absence creates opportunities for illegal possession, a silent theft affecting thousands.

In my ongoing work, particularly in “The Hidden Engine of South Asia,” I’ve tried to shed light on the unseen economic forces that truly sustain our region – the common citizens. Yet too often, these very individuals find themselves at the mercy of a system that fails to protect their most fundamental rights, especially when it comes to property.

This problem is not just a personal tragedy for victims—it has national consequences. Weak property protections scare away investors. For a country like Pakistan, which urgently needs foreign direct investment (FDI) to fill its current account gap and boost growth, the inability to guarantee secure land ownership becomes a hidden but powerful deterrent.

Today, I want to address a specific, pervasive, and deeply insidious form of injustice: “long absence dispossession.”

A Law with Potential but Failing in Practice

Pakistan has a potent law, the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, enacted with the noble intention of curbing the notorious activities of property grabbers and the land mafia. This Act, with its promise of swift remedies and severe penalties (up to ten years imprisonment), was meant to be a bulwark against forced evictions and illegal occupation. It empowers victims to seek justice directly through the Court of Session without the need to first lodge an FIR, offering interim relief and restoration of possession.

However, as I’ve observed firsthand and argued previously, this Act—despite its robust framework—fails in practice. And the primary reason lies in a critical misinterpretation of what constitutes “dispossession” in our courts.

The Myth of “Snatching Possession Only”

When a lawful owner is physically present on their land and a mob or powerful land grabber forcibly removes them, that is a clear, undeniable act of “snatching possession.” Our courts seem most prepared to address this scenario under the Act. The immediacy of the crime, the overt use of force – it fits a conventional understanding of criminal dispossession.

But such outright “snatching” represents only a tiny fraction of the illegal dispossessions occurring in our society today.

The Reality of “Long Absence Dispossession”

The vast majority of property grabs happen silently, over time, and most critically, in the absence of the rightful owner. 

Consider these common scenarios:

Overseas Pakistanis: Many of our hardworking citizens invest their life savings in property back home but cannot be physically present to guard it.

Inter-city Migration: People move for work, education, or family, leaving ancestral or investment properties unattended.

Vulnerable Owners: The elderly, the poor, or families dealing with personal tragedies may leave properties unmonitored for extended periods.

It is during these periods of long absence that the real theft occurs. A boundary wall shifts, a room is quietly constructed, fraudulent documents surface, utility connections are diverted, or fictitious tenants are installed. By the time the rightful owner returns, sometimes years later, they find their property occupied, their claims challenged, and their attempts to reclaim it met with a labyrinth of legal and bureaucratic hurdles.

When these victims approach the courts under the Act, their pleas often fail—not because their ownership is unclear, but because courts demand evidence of a recent, forcible “snatching,” ignoring the reality that most dispossession is gradual and silent.

Why This Flaw Endures

Several systemic issues allow this injustice to persist:

Narrow Judicial Interpretation: Courts tend to treat only sudden, forcible removals as actionable, ignoring the far more common pattern of silent encroachment.

Lack of Protection for Absentee Owners: Those who have clear ownership documents but are not in possession often find themselves excluded from the Act’s protection.

What Must Change

To ensure the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, truly serves its purpose, we need urgent, multifaceted reforms:

Legislative Expansion: Amend the Act to explicitly cover delayed, hidden, or long‑absence dispossession, with no time bar if lawful ownership is proven.

Right to File Without Possession: Any person with clear ownership documents, even if not currently in possession, must be explicitly allowed to file a complaint under the Act.

Shift the Burden of Proof: The burden should fall on the current occupier to prove that they hold lawful possession.

Primary Legal Weight to Ownership Documents: Courts must treat genuine ownership papers as the cornerstone of justice, rather than focusing only on physical possession.

Mandatory In‑depth Court Examination: Judges should delve into the chain of ownership and history of a property rather than limiting focus to immediate events.

Judges as Protectors of Rights: The judiciary must actively safeguard citizen rights, considering the socioeconomic realities that delay reporting.

Government’s Decisive Role:

Break the power of land mafias.

Strengthen and digitize land records to make them tamper‑proof.

Launch fast‑track courts for property cases.

Provide free legal aid to vulnerable victims.

A Key to Unlocking Investment

Beyond protecting citizens, fixing this flaw is an economic necessity. Secure property rights are the foundation of investor confidence. No serious foreign investor will risk building factories, offices, or housing projects in a system where long‑absence dispossession goes unpunished. By closing this loophole, Pakistan can send a strong signal to global markets: your investment is safe here.

✳️ What Must Be Done Now — A Legal Clarification Is Urgently Needed

Despite the clear wording of Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 — which criminalizes any unlawful control or occupation of property — courts often interpret it narrowly. Relief is frequently denied unless the complainant proves recent, forceful eviction or was in physical possession at the time.

This narrow interpretation undermines the very purpose of the Act and leaves thousands of lawful owners, especially overseas Pakistanis, vulnerable to land mafias, fraud, and quiet encroachment.

We therefore call upon:

The Pakistan Bar Council, Supreme Court Bar Association, and provincial bar associations

The Government of Pakistan, especially the Punjab Government under Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz Sharif

Members of Parliament and Senate who support judicial reform and the rights of absentee owners

To take urgent action by filing a constitutional petition or legal reference to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, requesting:

1. A detailed judicial interpretation of Section 3 that explicitly includes long-absence dispossession.

2. Recognition that lawful ownership, not physical possession, is the correct legal basis for protection under the Act.

3. A declaration that gradual, silent encroachments, especially in the owner's absence, fall within the scope of illegal dispossession.

Only through such a clarification can Pakistan:

Protect its citizens’ property rights

Restore the original spirit of the law

And create a safer, fairer environment for foreign investment and overseas Pakistanis

The law is clear. The injustice is clear. Now, judicial clarity must follow.

Conclusion

The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, holds immense potential to safeguard the economic backbone of our society—the common citizen’s hard‑earned property—and, by extension, to unlock greater foreign direct investment that Pakistan urgently needs. But this potential remains untapped as long as the law ignores the most prevalent form of property crime: the silent, insidious dispossession during an owner’s absence.

Reforming this law is not only a moral duty but an economic strategy. A Pakistan where property rights are truly protected is a Pakistan where investors—local and foreign—can confidently build, create jobs, and drive prosperity. Real reform begins when the silent majority is no longer ignored, and their fundamental rights, including secure property ownership, are fully upheld.

Note: I have copies of real case examples demonstrating these challenges. If any official, researcher, or institution requires them for further study or action, I am willing to provide them.

✨ 

This article is also available on Medium