2006 PLP 909 (YLR)

JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.--The petitioner/plaintiff impugns the appellate decree dated 24-5-2001 whereby the decree of the learned trial Court dated 6-11-1996 was set aside and a suit filed by the petitioner seeking possession of the suit-land was dismissed.

2. The facts of this case are simple. The petitioner/plaintiff is owner of land measuring ten Marlas situated in Mouza Ghalian, Sialkot City, while the respondent/ defendant owns Khasras Nos.177 and 178 in Mouza Rangpura in Sialkot City. The properties respectively owned by the parties to this petition are situated on the boundary line dividing the two Mouzas. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that out of his land, the respondent/defendant has encroached 14 Marlas. The defence set up by the respondent, however, is that he is only in occupation of land which he owns in the above referred Khasra numbers and there is no excess land with him.

3. The petitioner based his claim on a report (Exh.P.1) prepared by the Naib-Tehsildar, who appeared as P.W.2 to prove his case that his land has been encroached upon. The learned trial Court relied on the said report and decreed the suit of the petitioner. The learned Appellate Court has, however, discarded the suit report primarily for the reason that it was made without notice to the respondent/defendant. Before me, learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that the report is invalid for another reason. According to him, the Naib-Tehsildar only took into account the record of Mouza Ghalian while preparing the said report, while the dispute between the parties is of a nature where the land comprised in both Mouza Rangpura and Mauza Ghalian is required to be measured and taken into account. According to learned counsel for the respondent, in such situation the Revenue Officer is required to follow the law laid down is section 117 of the Land Revenue Act read with rules 64 and 67-A of the Land Revenue Rules. Also relevant for the purposes of this case are paras.4.1 and 4.4 of the Land Record Manual and paras.255 and 256 read with Appendix VII of the Land Settlement Manual.

4. Learned counsel for both parties agree that the proper course for the petitioner would be to approach the appropriate revenue forum so that the Thak Bast relating to the two Mouzas, namely, Rangpura and Ghalian, is made in accordance with the law and instructions mentioned above. On the basis of the present evidence the petitioner's suit cannot be decreed. This petition, in' the circumstances, cannot be allowed.

5. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner from making an appropriate application under the legal provisions, noted above. Needless to say if such an application is made, the competent revenue forum shall proceed to decide the same after hearing all concerned and after adhering to the law, procedure and guidelines mentioned in the Statute and Statutory instructions, referred to above. This petition is disposed of. H.B.T./S-448/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.