2026 C L C 344

2026 C L C 344

[Balochistan]

Before Shaukat Ali Rakhshani and Muhammad Ayub Khan Tareen ,

JJ

Messrs MAYANI POLY PACKAGES (PVT) LTD. through Duly

Authorized Director ---Petitioner

Versus

SMBR BALOCHISTAN and others ---Respondents

C.P. No. 478 of 2024 and Civil Revision No. 210 of 2022, decided on 2nd

December, 2025.

Balochistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)---

----Ss. 3, 30, 121 & 173---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115, O.VII, R.11 & O.XXVI, Rr. 9,

10, 18---Suit for declaration and injunction---Rejection of plaint---

Demarcation proceedings---Urban property / building site---Revenue

authorities, jurisdiction of---Suit filed by petitioner / plaintiff was

rejected by Trial Court due to bar of S.172 of Balochistan Land

Revenue Act, 1967, which order was maintained by Lower Appellate

Court---Validity---Revenue officer / official designated under Land

Revenue Act, 1967, could not demarcate any urban property or the

property that had gained character of building site---Trial Court

rejected claim of petitioner / plaintiff as barred under S.172

Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 and the order was upheld by

Lower Appellate Court mainly relying on S.172 of Balochistan Land

Revenue Act, 1967---Both the Courts below failed to consider

provision of S.3 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, which

excluded jurisdiction of revenue authorities---Provision of S.172 of

Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, excludes jurisdiction of Civil

Court in the matters that are solely within the authority of revenue

officers---Matter was outside the jurisdiction of revenue authorities

and the suit was properly filed before Civil Court---Civil Court is the

most appropriate forum to resolve dispute between parties

permanently by following the provisions of O.XXVI, Rr. 9 & 10, C.P.C.,

or O.XXVI, R.18, C.P.C. enabling Trial Court to conduct site inspection

/ demarcations under its authority, with the assistance of some

expert revenue officials---Both the Courts below being unaware of

their jurisdiction as provided by law proceeded to decide the matter

without considering its legality---High Court set aside the orders

passed by two Courts below as there were material illegalities and

irregularities---High Court remanded the matter to Trial Court to decide the suit after appointing Local Commission assisted by

revenue staff in order to determine boundaries of suit property---

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Dr. Jalal Khan v. Qazi Naseer Ahmed, District Deputy Officer

(Revenue), Kharian District Gujrat and 6 others 2005 MLD 814; Khizar

Hayat and another v. Pakistan Railways through Chairman, Pakistan

Railway, Lahore and 2 others 2006 CLC 1028; Pervez Ahmed Khan

Burki and 3 others v. Assistant Commissioner Lahore Cantt and 2

others PLD 1999 Lah.31; Muhammad Sadiq and another v. Abdul Aziz

and another 1990 CLC 1387 and Abdul Majeed v. Province of the

Punjab and others PLD 2006 Lah.741 rel.

Muhammad Saleem Lashari and Rehan Khan Babar for Petitioner.

Chaudhry Hasan Murtaza Mann, Mehta Rajesh Nath Kohli and Qazi

Najeeb-ur-Rahman for Private Respondents.

Arbab Nasruminallah, Additional Advocate General for Official

Respondents.

Date of hearing: 23rd October, 2025.

JUDGMENT

MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN TAREEN, J.---This common order shall

dispose of Constitutional Petition No.478/2024 and Civil Revision

Petition No.210/2022, as in both these petitions, subject matter is the

same.

2. The petitioner in Constitutional Petition No.478/2024 has sought

the following relief:

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the impugned order dated

28.03.2024 passed by respondent No.1 and re-demarcation

report dated 22.10.2021 are not sustainable in the eyes of law

and same are liable to be set aside, in the interest of justice,

equity and fairplay and demarcation/report which was carried

on 15.03.1980 in respect of land including land in question

Khasra No.260/2 be declared as valid demarcation as the map

has duly been prepared in pursuance of said demarcation the

petitioner being owner of the property under Khasra No.260/2 is

in peaceful possession of his land.

Any other relief which this Hon ble deem fit and proper be awarded

to petitioner.

3. Facts of the case in Constitutional Petition are that the petitioner

filed a Civil Revision Petition No. 126/2021/S.MBR against the official respondents and private respondent Shaheryar Khan Durrani with the

averments that initially a land was required to Fauji Foundation of

setting up a poly propylene bagging plant from Government of

Balochistan, at Mouza Berrot, District Lasbela. After agreeing upon the

rate, the Fauji Foundation wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner

Lasbela on 10th December 1979 for demarcation of said land, in

response a report dated 18th February 1980 was prepared by

concerned Patwari wherein the correct measurement of Khasra

No.260/2 was also shown. After demarcation, a letter was written to

Fauji Foundation on 7th April 1980 for handing over physical

possession after demarcation and accordingly on 24th April 1980

possession of the above land was given to the Fauji Foundation.

Further on 8th May 1980, the purchased land of Fauji Foundation

measuring 40-3-34 acres under survey No.260/2, 364/2, 250/1 and 390/1

in Mouza Berrot, Tehsil Hub was handed over to Fauji Foundation. On

31st May 1980 a letter was issued for allotment of land upon the name

of Fauji Foundation in the above said area followed by transfer of the

land from the name of Provincial Government on the name of

Industries Department Balochistan through mutation No.304 and

thereafter through mutation No.305 the land was transferred in the

name of Fauji Foundation on 2nd June 1980.

Thereafter, through sale deed dated 28th April 2003, the petitioner

purchased a piece of land measuring almost 5 acres 18 poles under

Khasra No.364/2 situated at Mouza Berrot, Pirkas Road, Tehsil Hub,

District Lasbela including factory building from Fauji Foundation, and

possession was handed over to the petitioner. Subsequently, in June

2006 another piece of land was also purchased by the petitioner from

Fauji Foundation measuring 35-3-15 acres falling under Khasra

Nos.250/1, 260/2, 364/2 and 390/1, situated at Mauza Berrot, Tehsil Hub,

District Lasbela, vide sale deed dated 26th June 2006 and possession of

the same was also handed over to the petitioner by Fauji Foundation.

Meaning thereby the petitioner purchased total land measuring 40-3-

34 acres and since then the purchased land is in possession of the

petitioner without any interference from any corner.

In December 2017, the petitioner sold out a piece of land measuring

22-1-31 acres under Khasra No.364/2 and 390/1 through mutation

No.16126 to one Zia-ur-Rahman Mengal and the possession was also

handed over at the time of sale, out of which remaining land left to the

petitioner measuring 18-2-3 acres even in the said land no one raised

any objection from any corner as the petitioner is in possession of the

same since its purchase.

It is the case of petitioner that initially respondent Altaf Hussain

Agha filed a suit against the petitioner and Fauji Foundation claiming to be in possession of the land-in-question falling under Khasra

No.260/2 with the averments that the same is located in Khasra No.260;

however, Altaf Hussain Agha withdrawn his suit in January 2021 and

during pendency of litigation, he sold out his property to respondent

Shaheryar Khan Durrani, who in connivance of revenue staff managed

a demarcation in his favour on 28th January 2021. The petitioner

challenged the said demarcation; as a result the Commissioner, Kalat

at Khuzdar constituted a team for the proper demarcation of

petitioner s piece of land bearing survey No.260/2, Mauza Berrot,

Tehsil Hub measuring around 12 acres, as there was no dispute of the

ownership between the stake holders. It is the petitioner s stance that

the demarcation process was in progress, suddenly the Naib Tehsildar

Khuzdar and his team members vanished, in this respect, the

petitioner lodged a complaint against the Naib Tehsildar. Meanwhile

the petitioner came to know about demarcation report dated 22nd

October 2021. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision petition,

but his petition was dismissed, vide order dated 28th March 2024,

passed by the learned Senior Member Board of Revenue Balochistan,

Quetta. Hence, this Constitutional petition with the prayer mentioned

above.

4. In Civil Revision Petition No.210/2022, the petitioner seeks the

following prayer:

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the impugned order-

decree/impugned judgment decree dated 18th of February 2022

and 15th of April 2022 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Hub

and learned District Judge, Hub respectively, be set aside and

matter be send back to learned trial court to decide the matter

on merits as prayed for, in the interest of justice, equity and

fairplay.

5. Facts of the Civil Revision Petition are that the petitioner filed a

Civil Suit No.10/2021 against respondents for declaration, injunction,

cancellation and damages with the averments that the petitioner is a

limited company incorporated under Companies Ordinance and is

exclusive and undisputed owner of a piece of land bearing survey

No.260/2, measuring 12-0-34 acres situated at Mauza Berrot, Tehsil

Hub (hereafter the land-in-question), which was purchased from Fauji

Foundation and peaceful possession of the same was handed over to

the petitioner with proper demarcation identified by virtue of

boundary marks placed by Fauji Foundation. But respondent Altaf

Hussain proprietor of Abbas Spinning and Weaving Mills claims to be

the owner of Khasra No.260 measuring around 60 acres in same

Mouza adjacent to the petitioner s land on the strength of a sale agreement, in this respect Altaf Hussain also instituted a civil suit

against the petitioner with ulterior motives.

The main suit was accompanied with an application under Order

XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.

6. On service of notice, the respondents (defendants) filed their

respective written statements.

Out of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court (Senior

Civil Judge, Hub) instead of framing issues, entertained the application

under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. filed by respondent Altaf Hussain;

meanwhile the petitioner also filed an application under Order XIII

Rule 2, C.P.C.

7. The learned trial court fixed the applications filed, under Order

XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. and under

Order XIII Rule 2 C.P.C., but opt to decide the application filed by

respondent-Altaf Hussain and rejected the petitioner s suit under

Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C., for having no cause of action and barred by

law, vide order and decree dated 18th February 2022. Assailed in Civil

Appeal No. 02/2022, but dismissed, vide judgment and decree dated

15th April 2022, passed by the learned appellate court (District Judge

Lasbela). Hence, this revision petition with the prayer mentioned

above.

8. Learned counsel of the petitioner contended that the trial court

without framing issues and providing opportunity to lead evidence to

the respective parties, rejected the suit under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C.

That the private respondents started interference in the property-in-

question, therefore, the petitioner rightly approached the trial court

seeking declaration and permanent injunction; such relief cannot be

granted by the revenue hierarchy. Besides, instead of rejecting the

plaint for want of jurisdiction, the learned trial court should had

returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10, C.P.C. to the petitioner

with further direction to approach the competent forum. Moreover, if

the trial court had no jurisdiction, then there was no need to discuss

the documents, annexure maps etc while rejecting the suit, but this

aspect of the matter escaped notice of both the courts below, which

has caused miscarriage of justice. It was lastly contended that the

concurrent findings of the courts below are based on misreading and

misappriciation of the evidence; thus, the same are required to be

interfered by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.

9. On the other-hand, the respondents (defendants) opposed the

petition and supported the impugned order, judgment and decrees

rendered by the courts below. 10. We have carefully considered the respective arguments of the

learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, which

is appended herewith.

The dispute between the private parties concerns property under

Khasra No. 260/2, measuring 12 acres, 0 rods, 34 poles, located in

Mouza Berrot, Tehsil Hub. The petitioner accuses Shaheryar Khan

Durrani (respondent No. 5 in C.P. and respondent No.3 in Civil

Revision) of illegal interference with his property, while said

respondent claims rightful possession of the neighboring lands,

identified as Khasra Nos. 260, 256, 257, and 259, collectively covering

70 acres. To resolve the boundary dispute, respondent Shaheryar Khan

Durrani initially requested the Deputy Commissioner of Lasbela

(respondent No.3 in C.P. and respondent No.5 in Civil Revision) to

demarcate the boundary lines related to the petitioner's claim in

December 2020. This request resulted in a report by revenue officials

on 28th January 2021. Dissatisfied with the report, the petitioner filed

a review application for re-demarcation; the subsequent report dated

24th February 2021, which reaffirmed the previous report. The

petitioner also filed a revision before Senior Member Board of

Revenue Balochistan, Quetta (respondent No.1 in C.P.), which was

dismissed, upholding the decision of the lower authorities.

11. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also filed a civil suit before the

Court of Senior Civil Judge Hub for declaration, injunction,

cancellation, and damages, and after filing written statement by the

defendants in the suit, an application under Order-VII Rule 11, C.P.C.

was also filed, and after hearing the arguments, the application filed

by the defendants was allowed, vide order dated 18th February 2022,

with the following observations:

12. The case in hand is not a case of Had-Shikni but demarcation

and demarcation is the domain of Revenue authorities. If the

parties have issues with demarcation, they may seek remedy

within the hierarchy of Revenue. Plaint is not liable to be

rejected in the circumstances. The suit is barred by law under

section 172 (2) (i) of Land Revenue Act and thus hit by Order VII,

Rule 11, C.P.C.

The petitioner filed an appeal, and the learned appellate court also

upheld the order and decree passed by the trial court.

12. The primary questions before us are, first, whether the revenue

authorities, under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, have

the jurisdiction to carry out the demarcation of the disputed land?

Second, whether the trial court correctly dismissed the suit for lack of

jurisdiction? and whether the appellate court rightly upheld it? To address the first question, the record shows that the disputed

property is located within Hub City and is urban in nature. It includes

the Industrial Department of the Government, as well as private

buildings, factories, and a rest-house, which the petitioner claims to

have purchased from Ex-Fauji Polypropylene Products (Fauji

Foundation). The property is located along Metal Road, near the Hub,

and the seller also mentions a rest-house and various other items. For

examination of whether the revenue officials could demarcate such

property under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, we will

have to see the provisions of section 3 thereof, which provides:

3. Exclusion of certain land from operation of this Act. (1) Except so

far as may be necessary for the record, recovery and

administration of village cess, or for purposes of survey, nothing

in this Act applies to land which is occupied as the site of a town

or village, and is not assessed to land revenue.

A plain reading of this provision clearly excludes land that is

maintained as a town or village and is not assessed for land revenue.

The disputed property is part of the town's site, as outlined in the Land

Revenue Act. Therefore, the provisions of the Land Revenue Act did

not apply to it, and accordingly, resorting to its provisions for

demarcation was not permissible. The applications filed for

demarcation of part of the town site were made under section 117 of

the said Act, which authorizes a revenue officer to define the

boundaries of any estate, holding, field, or other portion of an estate.

However, this section cannot be extended to land that does not fall

within any estate. Demarcation must be carried out under Rule 67-A of

the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, which also pertains to

defining the limits of an estate, holding, field, or any part thereof.

Reliance is also placed on the case of Dr. Jalal Khan v. Qazi Naseer

Ahmed, District Deputy Officer (Revenue), Kharian District Gujrat and

6 others (2005 MLD 814), in which it was held:

5. I have minutely considered the respective arguments of the

learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record,

appended herewith. Before proceeding with the determination

of the controversy, it has to be kept in mind that property

subject of dispute is located within limits of Town Committee,

Kharian, and is not only urban in nature but has also been

converted into building site. For examination whether such

property could be demarcated by respondent No.2

(Tehsildar/Revenue Officer) under the provisions of Land

Revenue Act, 1967, we will have to see provisions of section 3

thereof, which excludes certain land from operation of the Act.

This provision of law clearly excludes the land which is kept as a site of Town or village and is not assessed to land revenue. The

property subject of dispute being part of site of the Town

provisions of the Act (ibid) were not applicable to it and thus

resort to its provisions for demarcation thereof was not

permissible. Petitioner himself moved for demarcation of a part

of site of the Town under section 117 of the said Act, which

equips a revenue officer to define the limits of any estate or of

any holding, field or other portion of an estate but cannot be

extended for this purpose, to the land not falling in any Estate.

Had the land subject of dispute been part of any estate, the

revenue officer could have proceeded to de marcate it under

section 117(1) of the Act, but he could not undertake any such

activity about the land falling outside the limits of the estate of

any village. Demarcation in terms of section 177 of the Land

Revenue Act, 1967 has to be done under rule 67-A of the West

Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, which as well, refers to

defining the limits of an estate, a holding, a field or any portion

thereof. In view of this clear provision, there is no ambiguity

that a Revenue Officer designated under the Land Revenue Act,

1967 could not demarcate any urban property falling within the

limits of Town Committee especially that, which has gained the

character of building site.

6. Tehsildar/Revenue Officer (respondent No.2) in his report dated

12-2-2000 alleged to have demarcated Khasra No.50, in

possession of respondents Nos.5 to 7 by fixing North-Eastern

corner of Khasra No.58 as permanent point. It is not clear from

his report that how this corner of Khasra No.58 was taken as

permanent point, without bringing measurement from any

Pakka point fixed during last settlement or like road, canal, well

etc. Under the Financial Commissioner's instructions of

demarcation which were adopted by this Court in High Court

Rules and Orders, Volume-V, Chapter 1-D, the demarcating

officer was required to measure the properties subject of

demarcation from three permanent places and he was required

to show this measurement in his report by erecting boundaries

of each Khasra number intervening, but no such step was taken.

Report of Tehsildar reveals that he was aware of the instructions

of the Financial Commissioner and he attempted to justify his

report through fake fixation of Khasra Nos.43, 46, 51 and 58. The

measurements shown in the report were not made according to

"Shajra Aks" or "Masavi" without which he could not find out at

the spot, whether the measurement done by him is according to

the Revenue Record or not. In the case of Khizar Hayat and another v. Pakistan Railways

through Chairman, Pakistan Railway, Lahore and 2 others (2006 CLC

1028), it was held:

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the record, appended with all the three revision

petitions. Petitioners had produced voluminous documentary

evidence to prove their ownership in Khasra No.4976/4981/3211

of Khewat No.1029 vide Jamabandi for the year 1989-90 and

report of Naib Tehsildar, Khushab dated 12-6-1983 (Exh.P.4)

showing demarcation of suit property on their application.

Similarly, respondents had also produced a demarcation report

dated 20-3-1995 (Exh.D.6) prepared by Tehsildar, Khushab on

application of the respondents. Minute examination of both

these demarcation reports revealed that suit property being

located within the municipal limits of Khushab was demarcated

by two Revenue Officers under the provisions of West Pakistan

Land Revenue Act, 1967, without putting to rest the controversy

between the parties, whereunder their respective claimed

Khasra numbers were undeniably adjacent to each other

because none of these reports gave any clear verdict of

overlapping of properties allegedly raised by the petitioners

through encroachment as per claim of the respondents. Both the

Khasra numbers, the one 3211 claimed to be owned by the

petitioners and the other 3192 alleged to have been encroached

by them, as per assertions of the respondents, are adjacent to

each other and are abutting a metalled road as per Shajra Akse

produced by the Revenue Patwari of the Circle. It is not disputed

between the parties that suit properties are no more agricultural

land and are building sites, located within the municipal limits

of Khushab. Such properties could not have been demarcated by

the officials working in revenue hierarchy under West Pakistan

Land Revenue Act, 1967, as its section 3, excluded land kept as

site of a town or village from its operation. Language of the

provision of law, under discussion, accepts no ambiguity that

demarcation of land kept/used as a building site could not have

been done under the provisions of Act of 1967, which was A

subject to their process only for certain restricted physical

purposes like recovery of land revenue etc. In forming this view,

I have to my credit a chain of judgments including the cases of

Ghulam Rasul v. Ikram Ullah and another PLD 1965 (W,P.) Lah.

429; Tahir Hanif v. Member, Board of Revenue and others 1982

CLC 1732; Syed Aslam Shah and 3 others v. Mst. Sakina and

another 1988 MLD 1596 and Pervez Ahmed Khan Burki and 3 others v. Assistant Commissioner, Lahore Cantt. and 2 others

PLD 1999 Lah. 31.

In the case of Pervez Ahmed Khan Burki and 3 others v. Assistant

Commissioner Lahore Cantt and 2 others (PLD 1999 Lahore 31), it was

held:

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 and others PLD 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.

Similar views were taken in the cases of Muhammad Sadiq and

another v. Abdul Aziz and another (1990 CLC 1387) and Abdul Majeed

v. Province of the Punjab and others (PLD 2006 Lahore 741).

13. In view of this explicit provision, there is no ambiguity that a

revenue officer/official designated under the Land Revenue Act, 1967,

could not demarcate any urban property or property that has gained

the character of a building site. 14. The learned trial court, while rejecting the petitioner s

(plaintiff's) claim as barred under Section 172 of the Land Revenue

Act, 1967, upheld it on appeal by the appellate court, which dismissed

the petitioner's appeal, mainly relying on Section 172 of the Act.

However, they failed to consider the provisions of section 3 of the

same Act, which exclude the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities.

Section 172 of the Act excludes the jurisdiction of a civil court in

matters that are solely within the authority of revenue officers. As

discussed above, the current matter was outside the jurisdiction of the

revenue authorities, and the suit was properly filed before the civil

court. The civil court is the most appropriate forum to resolve the

dispute between the parties permanently by following the provisions

of Order XXVI, Rules 9 and 10 C.P.C., or Order XXVI, Rule 18, enabling

the trial court to conduct site inspection/demarcations under its

authority, with the assistance of some expert revenue officials.

However, the learned courts below, being unaware of their

jurisdiction as provided by law, proceeded to decide the matter

without considering its legality. Reliance is further placed on the case

of Dr. Jalal Khan v. Qazi Naseer Ahmed, District Deputy Officer

(Revenue), Kharian District Gujrat and 6 others (2005 MLD 814),

wherein it was held:

7. Properties of parties were, undeniably urban even at the time of

allotment by Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation

Commissioner, for this reason as well, Revenue Officer was not

competent to undertake the exercise of demarcation. Under law,

the Revenue Officer could only demarcate boundaries of any

estate or any part thereof, under the provisions already

discussed. Predecessor of the respondents, who was plaintiff,

was required to prove his title to property in possession of the

petitioners through some lawful/cogent evidence, in absence of

which his suit could not have been decreed. Even otherwise,

since there was the only dispute of demarcation which could

have resolved the controversy for all times to come, the trial

Court should have invoked its own jurisdiction in this behalf, in

spite of report Exh.P.1, but both the Courts below, being

oblivious of their jurisdiction under Order XXVI, Rule 9, C.P.C.

proceeded to decide the lis without adverting to legality or

otherwise of the said report.

8. Besides the fact that report was not prepared according to law,

encroachments shown therein could not have been removed by

the Revenue officials because no such power vested in them for

granting a decree for possession in summary proceedings and

that too on the basis of an unauthorized and illegal demarcation

report. Emphasis of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Collector by virtue of his powers under section 122 of the Land

Revenue Act, 1967 could order dispossession of persons in

wrongful possession of any land, is absolutely misplaced. This

section has to be read in conjunction with preceding section i.e.

121 which relates to the manner of fixing boundaries of all or

any of the estate in any local area under the Rules framed by the

Board of Revenue. Power of Collector to remove persons in

wrongful possession of the land is conferred on him for erecting

boundaries of an estate and not for any part thereof especially

when some private individual asserted encroachment by his

adjoining owner or someone else. Petitioner instead of insisting

possession through officials in revenue hierarchy out of

summary proceedings, should have filed a suit for possession

against respondents Nos.5 to 7 where his property was to be

demarcated under the orders of the Civil Court under the

provisions of Order XXVI, Rule 9, C.P.C.

In the case of Abdul Majeed v. Province of the Punjab and others

(PLD 2006 Lahore 741), it was held that the court has full authority to

appoint any person for local inspection, including revenue officials.

The relevant part mentioned in paragraph 12 of the said judgment is

reproduced below:

12. Similarly, there is no force in the contention of learned counsel

for the petitioner that as in terms of Rule 67-A of the Land

Revenue Rules relating to demarcation of land it is mandatory

requirement that only the Revenue Officer can hold

demarcation as such appointment of Patwari for holding

demarcation was illegal and without lawful authority. I am

afraid such objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner

has got any legal force for the simple reasons that Rule 67-A of

the Land Revenue Rules refers to demarcation of agricultural

land only and not to property other than agricultural land and

the same is evident from provisions of section 3 of the Land

Revenue Act which expressly excludes the land not assessed to

land revenue from the operation of Land Revenue Act, 1967.

Further since Commission for holding demarcation was

appointed by the Court and not in pursuance of the said Rules,

therefore, the Court was fully competent to appoint any person

for this purpose and thus the appointment of Manzoor Hussian

and demarcation proceedings conducted by him were neither

illegal nor without jurisdiction and thus the objection of the

learned counsel for the petitioner to this effect is also not valid

in the eyes-of law. 15. In view of the above, the Constitutional Petition No. 478/2024

filed by the petitioner is allowed. It is declared that the demarcation

dated 22nd October 2022 conducted by the revenue authorities is

illegal and lacking lawful authority. Therefore, the order dated 28th

March 2024, rendered by the Senior Member, Board of Revenue

Balochistan in its revisional jurisdiction based on the said

demarcation, is overturned.

16. Corollary, the Civil Revision Petition No. 210/2022 is also allowed.

The impugned order and decree dated 18th February 2022, passed by

the Senior Civil Judge, Hub, which rejected the suit filed by the

petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C., is set aside. Likewise,

the judgment and decree dated 15th April 2022, passed by District

Judge Lasbela, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, is also set

aside due to material illegalities and irregularities.

The case is remanded to the trial court, i.e. Senior Civil Judge, Hub,

with the directions to decide the suit after appointing a Local

Commission preferably an Advocate, who shall be assisted by senior

Revenue staff in order to determine the boundaries of the property-in-

question and decide the case on its own merits. The trial court is also

directed to base its decision on the evidence available on record and

the evidence, if any, produced by the parties. Parties must appear

before the trial court on the date it sets, as soon as they receive the

case file and this court's order. Since the matter dates back to 2022 and

valuable rights of the parties are involved, the trial court is directed to

expedite proceedings and resolve the case as soon as possible.

MH/146/Bal Case remanded.