Demarcation of land

2025 CLC 585 BOARD-OF-REVENUE-PUNJAB Judicial Precedent

S. 117Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968, Rr. 67-A & 67-BDemarcation of landProcedure, following ofRevenue OfficerPowers and responsibilities

Revenue Officer is bound to adopt the procedure of R. 67-A of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968, when proceedings under S. 117 of Land Revenue Act, 1967, are to be conducted

What ought to be done must be done according to law

Member Board of Revenue set-aside both the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Additional Commissioner as well as demarcation proceedings and remanded the matters directing the concerned Revenue Officer to carry out the demarcation in accordance with law within 90 days

Revision petitions were partially allowed accordingly.

2019 MLD 1066 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 22-A(6)Ex-officio Justice of PeacePowers ofNature and scopeCivil disputeDemarcation of landJurisdiction

Petitioner assailed order of Ex-officio Justice of Peace whereby Mukhtiarkar was directed to demarcate the land of respondent as per his share

Validity

Ex-officio Justice of Peace had the power to issue appropriate directions to the police authorities on a complaint regarding non-registration of criminal case, transfer of investigation from one police officer to another and neglect, failure or excess committed by a police authority in relation to its function and duties

Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace were very limited which had been given to aid, assist and authorize the criminal jurisdiction system

Office of the Ex-officio Justice of Peace was not a court as envisaged under S.6 of Cr.P.C. or the relevant provisions of C.P.C.

Powers and duties of Ex-officio Justice of Peace under S.22-A(6), Cr.P.C. were only administrative and purely ministerial in character, which did not involve any jurisdiction that could be termed as judicial in nature or character

Section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. did not confer jurisdiction on the Ex-officio Justice of Peace to entertain complaint/application aimed to pass direction to a person or official relating to his duties in respect of dispute regarding immovable property

Order by Ex-officio Justice of Peace was declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2018 MLD 1806 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionHousing SocietyDemarcation of landLayout plan, withdrawal of by the Cantonment BoardPetitioner was a Housing Society and its layout plan comprised of three blocks

Grievance of petitioner Society was that Cantonment Board had issued a letter restricting approval of the Society only to the extent of Block-I on the ground that in demarcation of land Block-II and Block-III of the Society had fallen on defence land under the occupation of Pakistan Air Force

Validity

Claim of Pakistan Air Force was only in respect to 2.6 acres forming part of Block-III, no legal justification for suspension of layout plan in respect of Block-II existed

Letter in question issued by Cantonment Board on the ground that both chunks of Society's land designated as Block-II and Block-III were under occupation of Pakistan Air Force was devoid of any merit, as claim of Pakistan Air Force was only in respect of 2.6 acres, which was complete chunk of land comprising of Block-III of the Society

High Court directed to withdraw letter in question issued by Cantonment Board where layout plans in respect of both Block-II and III were withdrawn / cancelled could only apply to the chunk of land admeasuring 2.6 acres in Block-IIII of the Society, therefore, there was no legal justification for withdrawal or cancellation of layout plan in respect of Block-II

Constitutional petition was allowed of accordingly.

2016 CLCN 53 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 122 & 117Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionEviction petitionDemarcation of landJurisdiction of Civil CourtScopeRespondents moved application before revenue officer for eviction of petitioners which was accepted concurrentlyValidityRespondents had filed suit for possession with regard to suit property which was dismissedDemarcation of land would come within the exclusive domain of the revenue authorities

Civil suit for possession had necessarily to be filed in the civil court to claim possession of the area demarcated and encroached upon

Civil court could appoint commission for demarcation but same would be conducted by the revenue officials

Constitutional petition was accepted and impugned orders were set aside.

2013 CLC 1823 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 117West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, R.67-ACivil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2Suit for permanent injunctionDemarcation of landScopePlaintiffs filed suit to the effect that defendants be restrained from making construction in the plot in questionSuit was dismissed by the Trial Court but same was decreed by the Appellate CourtValidity

Patwari Halqa admitted that Ghair Mumkin Rasta was in the ownership of the defendants and was being used as path to their house

Plaintiffs were unable to explain as to how the defendants had encroached upon their property and how much property owned by him had been reduced by constructing the disputed path

Plaintiffs had failed to prove any act committed against their interest by constructing path or raising wall on the spot

Witnesses of plaintiffs had supported the stance of the defendants and claim of the plaintiffs was not established

Local Commission was appointed who submitted his report but same was objected to and was cancelled

Plea of the plaintiffs had to be proved through cogent evidence which was lacking in the present case

Neither any demarcation took place prior to the institution of suit nor plaintiffs had taken any steps to such effect

Plaintiffs had not complied with the relevant provisions and had filed the suit which was not the mandate of law

Without ascertaining the boundaries of the encroached land, no suit could be filed for eviction of unauthorized landowner

Appellate Court had not evaluated the evidence in true perspective and had not adhered to the legal provisions applicable in the present case and erred in decreeing the suit

Revision was accepted and impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and that of the Trial Court was restored.

2013 CLC 1823 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

R. 67-AWest Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.117Demarcation of landPowers of revenue officerProcedureEviction of unauthorized ownerScopePerson claiming encroachment in his property could move the Revenue Authorities for demarcation of landRevenue Officer had power to define the boundaries as per prescribed procedure

Unauthorized landowner could be evicted after settlement of boundaries and ascertaining proper position of land.