P L D 1999 Lahore 31 (PLP)

Shahid lqbal, Asstt. Advocate‑General for Respondent No.

1. Zia H. Rizvi for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 24th June, 1998. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question a notice issued by the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Lahore Cantt. to the petitioners for carrying out demarcation of Khasra No.S‑41‑R‑37, Mauza Mozang, Lahore. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid notice was not served upon them yet the respondents are threatening to carry out demarcation without any lawful authority.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the area in question is/has been built upon since long and forms part of bungalow/property bearing No.S‑41‑R/33 and does not form part of the revenue estate of Lahore Cantt. and as such the authorities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 have no jurisdiction either to carry out demarcation or interfere with the same in any manner whatsoever.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents, relying upon the judgment of this Court in Tahir Hanif v. Member, Board of Revenue and others 1982 CLC 1732, has argued that the revenue officer is competent for the purpose of preparation of records or assessment of an estate to carry out demarcation.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are unexceptionable. Undoubtedly respondents Nos.2 and 3 are functionaries appointed under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 to carry out the purposes of the aforesaid Act. The preamble to the Act recites that it was being framed to consolidate and amend the law relating to the making and maintenance of records‑of‑rights, the assessment and collection of land revenue, the appointment and functions of revenue officers and other matters connected therewith. According to section 3 of the Act, except for certain fiscal purposes, nothing in the Act applies to land which is occupied as a building site or such land on which permanent structures have been raised; it loses all characteristics of. A agriculture land and the dispute as regards the partition of such land has to be resolved through the Civil Court and not by Revenue Court. No detailed discussion on the subject is necessary in view of the judgment of this Court in Ghulam Rasool v. Ikram Ullah etc. Pl‑D 1965 (W.P.) Lahore 429 whereafter exhaustive discussion on the subject it was held that a Revenue Officer does not have any jurisdiction to entertain an application for the partition of the properties which have ceased to be land notwithstanding the fact they continue to be assessed to land revenue. The land involved' in the present case is on much better footing inasmuch as the land does not pay any land revenue. The same view was taken in Syed Aslam Shah and 3 others v. Mst. Sakina and another 1988 MLD 1596. So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, it is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as it related to demarcation of open plots of land. In view of the above, thi: petition is allowed and it is declared that respondents Nos. I and 2 have no jurisdiction to carry out demarcation of the IB property which forms part of hunnalow No.S‑41‑R'33 No order as to costs. H.B.T./P‑52/L Petition allowed