ORDER JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
Pursuant to the orders dated 26.9.2005 and 22.11.2005, the Tehsildar, Lahore Cantt. Has submitted his report. Alongwith the report, a site plan has also been-submitted. Neither party has any objections to the report.
2. In order to fully understand the report and the purpose for which it was sought, the relevant contents of the order dated 26.9.2005 are reproduced as under:- "The petitioners are the legal representatives of one Noor Muhammad while the respondents are the legal representatives of Rao Muhammad Hanif. Rao Muhammad Hanif filed a suit seeking possession of ten marlas of land, It was his case that the said land was part of Khasra No. 48 which he had purchased through sale-deed dated 20.1.1976. According to the respondents/plaintiff, the petitioners forcibly took possession of the suit land although they had no title in Khasra No. 48. The written statement filed by the petitioners is to the effect that the petitioners had purchased ten marlas of land in Khasra No. 60. It was further averred by them that they were in occupation of their own land in Khasra No. 60 and were not occupying any part of Khasra No. 48.
2. On a number of occasions before the learned Trial Court in two earlier rounds of litigation, demarcation reports were prepared which indicated that the land occupied by the petitioners was in Khasra No. 48. .The said reports, however, have been discarded because of non-compliance with the provisions of Ord^r 26, rule 10(1), CPC read with High Court Rules and Orders, Volume-1, Chapter-!. In view of the above, on 12.4.1995, in the present proceedings, the Tehsildar, Lahore Cantt.
Was directed to prepare a fresh demarcation report. He appears to have prepared a report dated 12.6.1995. The respondents/plaintiffs, however, filed objections to the said report which are on file.
According to these objections, the Tehsildar visited the spot on 12.6.1995 in the presence of the parties and commenced measurements for the purpose of demarcation. However, he did not conclude the demarcation and, according to the respondents, directed the parties to be present at the sport on the following day.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondents contends that on the following day, i.e: 13.6.1995, the Tehsildar did not turn up at the spot. The report of the Tehsildar does support the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents because it bears the signatures of the respondents only on the first page to record their presence.
4. It is further contended in the respondent's objections that the Tehsildar did not identify the permanent points and coordinates as per High Court Rules, from which the location Of the disputed Khasra Nos. 48 and 60 could be determined. This contention also is borne out from the contents of the report.
5. In the above circumstances, the objections of the respondents having merit are allowed and the report dated 12.6.1995 is set aside.
6. The Tehsildar, Lahore Cantt, is directed to prepare a fresh report in the presence of the parties or their nominees. The parties shall appear before the Tehsildar on 10.10.2005, who shall thereafter fix a date and time for the demarcation of Khasra Nos. 48 and 60. The report shall also show the persons in occupation of Khasras No. 48 and 60.
3. According to the report of the Tehsildar, the petitioners are occupying 5 marlas of land in Khasra No. 48 although they, admittedly, have no title in Khasra No. 48. In the circumstances, they cannot possibly assert any right, at least, in respect of the 5 marlas, which they are occupying in Khasra No. 48. As to the remaining 5 marlas, which were purchased by the petitioners, the same being in Khasra No. 60, they are entitled to the same.
4. In the foregoing circumstances, this petition is partially allowed and the impugned decree is modified to the effect that the respondents/plaintiffs shall be entitled to the possession of the 5 marlas, which are shown in the report of the Tehsildar and site plan annexed thereto, to be in the unauthorized occupation of the petitioners.
5. Since this petition succeeds partially there will be no order as to costs.