2002 PLP 728 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 17th October, 2000. This is defendants' revision petition and is directed against concurrent judgments and decrees of learned two Courts whereby the suit for possession filed by the respondent‑plaintiff was decreed.

2. The case set up in the plaint by the respondent was that vide registered sale‑deed, dated 4‑5‑1988 he purchased land measuring 10 Marlas comprising Khasra No.2837 on which he had constructed his house. It was averred that on measurement it was found that the petitioners had encroached upon an area measuring 2 Marlas out of the aforesaid plot, on which a shop had been constructed. It was further asserted that petitioner No. l had made an application to the Tehsildar for demarcation of Khasra No.2837 as a result of which it was found that the petitioners had encroached upon two Marlas of land towards south of the plot of respondent‑plaintiff.

3. The suit was resisted on the grounds that it was barred by time. Plea of estoppel was also raised. The proceedings of demarcation were also assailed. It was claimed that under an agreement, dated 22‑12‑1987, petitioner No‑1 was in possession who had delivered possession of it to petitioner No .2 who had constructed a shop at the, cost of Rs.60,000 and that petitioner No.2 was entitled to compensation in case the suit of the respondent was decreed. "

4. The suit was tried and vide judgment and decree, dated 5‑4‑1999 it was decreed on the basis of the finding that while respondent was the owner of the disputed property, the petitioners had encroached upon the land in dispute. An appeal was taken by the petitioners before the learned District Court which was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 6‑11‑1999.of‑the learned District Judge, Narowal.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the proceedings of demarcation were contrary to the provisions‑ of Chapter 1‑M of the High Court Rules and Orders. According to him the Local Commissioner who appeared as P. W .2 had admitted that the demarcation was not done from a permanent point. He next submits that according? to P. W .2 the house of the respondent existed on an area measuring 10 Marlas and, therefore, it could not be said that the petitioners had encroached upon any land of the respondent. ,

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the matter stands concluded by concurrent findings of the learned two Courts and no interference is called for. According to him, the finding of the learned two Courts are fully backed by the evidence on record. He further submits that during the trial, petitioner No. 1 who appeared as D. W .1 took up the position that he had purchased the disputed land from one Subedar Sarfraz and had further alienated it in favour of petitioner No.2. This according to him, was not supported by any evidence and that the petitioners were trespassers on the land of respondent.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Application for demarcation was made by petitioner No. 1 himself on which proceedings of demarcation were carried out. According to the demarcation report, Exh. P.1, which was proved by P.W.2, demarcation was done with the consent of the parties taking the south‑eastern corner of Khasra No.2685 as correct. Petitioner No.1 also signed demarcation report. After having consented to the demarcation u the agreed manner, it was not open to the petitioners to turn around any say that it was not done in accordance with the High Court Rules any Orders. This report also explains that in fact the plaintiff‑respondent has also encroached a part of the street and thus his house existed on 10 Marlas but the fact remains that the disputed area of Khasra No.2837 is owned by the respondent which in illegal possession of the petitioners. The counter‑title set up by the petitioners during the trial was not proved. The matter stands concluded by concurrent findings of the learned two Courts. No case is made out for interference. This revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. H. B. T./D‑31/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.