2008 PLP 1627 (CLC)

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.

Inayat Hussain Shah, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 9 (hereinabove to be referred as plaintiff), filed a suit against Ibrahim the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners as also the respondent No.10. In the plaint it was stated that the land mentioned in the plaint comprising Khasra No.6483 is owned by the plaintiff and, inter alia, the said Ibrahim has encroached upon 16 Marlas of the said land as per demarcation report, dated 22-6-2000 of the Revenue Officer. A decree for possession was accordingly prayed for. The said Ibrahim in his written statement admitted that the suit-land is owned by the plaintiff but states that demarcation report is illegal. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned trial Court decreed the suit on 6-7-2004. A first appeal filed by the said Ibrahim was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Attock, on 5-1-2006.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to conduct demarcation in an urban area, as according to him the land was found constructed upon. He has also tried to argue that demarcation was not made in accordance with rules. Learned counsel for the plaintiff, on the other hand contends that in fact there was no need for demarcation in the Revenue Record being maintained for suit-land the said Ibrahim was in fact recorded to be tenant in possession without payment of any rent or share in the produce. He further argues that there was no plea that the area in question is urban and the mere fact that encroacher raised construction would not derogate from the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer to conduct demarcation.

3. I have gone through the copies of the record. As noted by me above, in the written statement the title of the plaintiff was admitted, of course, it was stated that demarcation report is illegal but no other plea was taken. I do not even find a denial that the said Ibrahim is not in possession of the suit-land in question. Be that as it may, in the course of evidence the said Ibrahim stated as D.W.1 that he purchased the land from Fayaz Hussain Shah. Although no document of mutation of sale is forthcoming yet in Exh.D.1 Ibrahim is recorded in the ownership column as co-owner of land comprising Khasra No.6507 which is described as "ﻏﻳﺮﻤﻤﻜﻦﻤﮑﺎﻨﺎﺖ" and in possession of one Noor Muhammad a tenant of all co-owners recorded in Exh.D.1.

4. On the other hand, Exh.P.1 is Register Haqdaran Zamin pertaining to the suit-land comprising Khasra No.6483 whereas the plaintiff is recorded to be owner, said Ibrahim recorded in possession of 2 Kanals of land without payment of any of rent or "ﺒﺌﺎﺌﻰﻧﺮﺍﺮﺪ" demarcation report is Exh.P.2 which has been proved by Ch. Rabnawaz, Tehsildar P.W.3.

5. Having gone through the said evidence, I find no misreading thereof by the learned Courts below. Learned counsel for the respondents has very correctly argued that there is no need for demarcation as Revenue Record reflects that said position i.e. that the said Ibrahim was in possession of suit-land owned by the plaintiff.

6. So far as the said contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, I find that there is neither any plea nor evidence on record that the land was in urban area. Any construction raised by the encroacher upon the land admittedly owned by the plaintiff cannot at all give rise to the assumption that the land is urban. So far as the demarcation report is concerned, suffice it to say that it is fully supported by the unchallenged Revenue Record. Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs. H.B.T./M-311/L Petition dismissed.