1992 PLP 586 (CLC)

Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 10‑7‑1982 the petitioners moved an application for the demaration of area mentioned in the opening para of this revision petition. The case was processed and demarcation report was prepared on 24‑5‑1984. In pursuance of that report the petitioners on 30‑9‑1984 applied to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector for issuing warrant of possession but their prayer was rejected on 13‑4‑1985 with the direction that the petitioners may seek their remedy in Civil Court. That order was challenged in appeal before the Additional Commissioner who vide his order dated 18‑11‑1985 remitted the case back on the ground that application under section 122 of Land Revenue Act, should have been presented before the Assistant Commissioner/Collector concerned. On remand, the Collector vide his order dated 9‑8‑1987 held that Khasra No.244/6‑min (4 Marlas) was under the unauthorised possession under respondent No.1 and Khasra No.243/1 (4 Marlas) and (2 Marlas) under the unauthorised possession of respondent No.2 and he directed these respondents to vacate that area within one month. That order was assailed in appeal, by the respondent No.1 and the Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 25‑4‑1988 remanded the case to the Collector for fresh decision. Hence this revision petition under section 164 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act. 1967.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved only to the extent of four Marlas of land which is under the possession of respondent No.1.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the demarcation proceedings pertain to 6 Marlas of land out of which 4 Marlas was in respondent's possession. The area was not urban as could be seen from the report Annexure F/I of the Town Committee Shorkot which shows that only Khasras Nos.223/24, 25, 243/23/1, 23/2 and 3 were included in municipal limits out of the land owned by petitioners and hence provisions of the Land Revenue Act were applicable. However, the learned Additional Commissioner had remanded the case to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector Shorkot on the appeal of the respondents without any cogent reason. The learned Additional Commissioner himself was not sure whether the land fell in the municipal limits and there was no reason to remand the case. It was prayed that the impugned order may be set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents maintained in rebuttal that a perusal of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector's order would .show that Nuzat Hussain was not made a party and therefore the remand was rightly made by the Additional Commissioner to afford him an opportunity to be associated with the demarcation proceedings.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners exercising his right of reply, with permission of the Court, pointed out that Nuzat Hussain was proceeded against ex parte in all the Courts.

6. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. It is evident from the report of the Town Committee that Khasras Nos.244/6 and 243/1 are not included in the limits of the Town Committee and therefore the demarcation proceedings could have been undertaken by the revenue functionaries. Even otherwise section 117 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, read with section 3(1) ibid gives unrestricted powers to a Revenue Officer to define the limits of any estate or holding on the application of any interested person. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Additional Commissioner had reached the findings that the order of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector dated 9‑8‑1987 had been made without taking into account the order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) dated 18‑11‑1985 whereby the petitioners Sh. Abdul Ghafoor etc., were directed to apply under section 122 of the Land Revenue Act, but instead of that, Sh. Abdul Ghafoor etc., again applied to the Collector for warrant of possession on the same demarcation report. If the learned Additional Commissioner had reached these conclusions, then there was no need for him to remand the case again and he should have decided the case himself. I, therefore, accept the revision petition and set aside the impugned order. The case shall be deemed to be pending before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Faisalabad Division, who shall decide it in accordance with law after hearing the parties. AA./404/R Case remanded.