MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---This judgment proposes to decide two civil revisions (Civil Revisions Nos.847 of 2006 and 849 of 2006) as those raise similar questions of law/facts; are directed against consolidated judgments, require similar determination and are between the same parties. Both these petitions assailed' judgments/decrees dated 29-9-2001 and 22-3-2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Chunian, District Kasur, whereby suit for declaration filed by Abdul Sattar petitioner was concurrently dismissed, whereas suit for possession by Abdul Ghafoor etc. Was concurrently decreed, respectively.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that Abdul Sattar petitioner filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction, as consequential relief to the effect that property built on plot measuring 3 Sarsahi situated in Kanganpur, Tehsil Chunian was purchased by him from Khasiyat Ali allottee through Mutation No.2832 dated 12-1-1971 for a consideration of Rs.1500. He pleaded that Khasiyat Ali became owner of the said land by virtue of order dated 8-7-1967 by Tehsildar/Additional Settlement Commissioner, Chunian, leading to sanctioning of Mutation No.2831 dated 12-1-1971.
Petitioner further asserted that at the time of sale in his favour, he was 'handed over possession of the land sold but Abdul Ghafoor respondent attempted to interfere in his possession, on the basis of his purchase from Mubarak Ali Shah to whoin, some shop was allotted by Advocate Supreme Court, Chunian, on 2-5-1968. According to him Mubarak All Shah had no right, title or interest in the property in dispute nor had he any locus standi to transfer it, in favour of Abdul Ghafoor respondent. Abdul Ghafoor on the other handle filed a suit for possession against Abdul Sattar with the averments that he is owner of land measuring 3 Sarsahi, out of Khasra No.3975/1 of Khatoni No.1911 as per Jamabandi for the year 1994-95 of village. Kanganpur, Tehsil Chunian, on the basis of purchase from Mubarak Ali Shah but Abdul. Sattar .Petitioner forcibly occupied the same grading it as the property allotted -to Khasiyat Ali. Initially Khasiyat Ali and Mubarak Ali Shah were impleaded to the suits but were deleted by the trial Court on 24-10-1995. Record revealed that subsequently on death of the deleted defendants, their successors were impleaded.
3. Both the suits filed by the parties were contested by filing the written statements and after consolidation of those, consolidated issues were framed by the trial Court, parties led their respective evidence and on the conclusion of the trial, suit filed by Abdul Sattar was dismissed, whereas the other filed by Abdul Ghafoor was decreed vide consolidated judgment/decrees dated 29-9-2001.
4. Abdul Sattar petitioner 'being aggrieved of decision of the trial Court, filed two distinct appeals before the learned Additional District Judge but remained unsuccessful, as the same were dismissed through consolidated judgment/decrees dated 22-3-2006. He, thereafter, filed these petitions for adjudgment of concurrent judgments/decrees of the two Courts below. Respondents in response to notice by this Court appeared and were represented through their counsel.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Both Abdul Sattar and. Abdul Ghafoor set up their respective title to the one and the same place measuring 3 Sarsahi which is in possession of the petitioner. Petitioner claimed that he is in possession of the shop allotted to him by ASC(L) vide order dated 8-2-1967. His possession is not denied by Abdul Ghafoor respondent as he filed a suit for possession against him. Allotment order in favour of vendor of Abdul Sattar is Exh.D.2, which shows that shop owned by non-Muslim evacuee Kartar Singh situated in village Kanganpur, Tehsil Chunian was allotted to Khasiyat Ali son of Hakim Ali on 8-7-1967. On the basis of this allotment Mutation No.2831 was sanctioned on 12-1- 1971 out of Khasra No.3975/4. Another shop of non-Muslim evacuees was allotted to Mubarak Ali Shah by ASC, Chunian on 2-5-1968 vide allotment order Exh.D.l and a corresponding Mutation No.2361 was sanctioned in his name on 19-11-1969 out of Khasra No.3975/1. These. Documents besides other documentary proof on the file, revealed that both the properties allotted to parties were absolutely distinct to each other and question which hinges for determination is as to whether shop in possession of Abdul Sattar petitioner bears Khasra No.3975/1 or 3975/4. The controversy could only be resolved through demarcation and fixing of both parts of Khasra No,3975. For this purpose, trial Court had appointed Naib Tehsildar Chunian as local commissioner, who submitted his report dated 24-9-2001 and according to this report shop in question is located in Khasra No.3975/1. The local commissioner also prepared a site sketch of Khasra No.3975 but without scale. Report of the local commissioner is available on record as Mark-A, whereas the site sketch prepared by him is Mark-B. Both the Courts below have discussed and relied on the report of the local commissioner but its examination revealed that though the local commissioner reported to have undertaken some measurements at the spot but how and in what'manner the same were done, is not reflected in the report. In demarcation (Hadbrari) cases, Financial Commissioner Punjab and prescribed procedure/method to be followed by the revenue officers.
Those instructions werer adopted by this Court, as contained in High Court Rules and Orders Vol-1, Part M(i). The Revenue Officer was legally obliged to first trace some permanent point like road., canal, well or some other permanent structure wherefrom' he was supposed to undertake the measurements by erecting each of Khasra numbers, intervening the place which is to be demarcated by him. The local commissioner was also under obligation to counter check by bringing his measurements from other side of the Khasra number to be located/demarcated but no such exercise was undertaken or mentioned in the report Mark-A. The local commissioner was examined as D.W.3 and he admitted in his cross-examination that he did not consult the Revenue Record. He could not deny that Mark-B was prepared by the Patwari and at the same time, he did not utter a word about his manner of measurements done at the site. This Court had earlier held in the case of Muhammad Bakhsh v. Nizam Din (PLD 1978 Lahore 31) that the acts done by the local commissioner should be mentioned in the report. Mark-A is absolutely silent about the reasons for holding that suit shop is located in Khasra No.3975/4, in absence of which the report was not worth reliance as it did not resolve the controversy inter parties.
6. Since the respective properties allotted to the parties were not correctly demarcated and there is no other evidence on the file to decide the lis for all times to come, I am left with no other option except to set aside the judgments/decrees of the two Courts below as those were based on a sketchy /unreasoned report of the local commissioner, prepared without actual measurement at the spot. Report dated 24-9-2001 prepared by Farooq Ahmed Qureshi, Naib Tehsildar, Chunian, is- accordingly declared as void and in light of the provisions of Order XXVI, rule 10(3), C. P. C., fresh spot inspection/demarcation is inevitable, hence the same is required to be done by the trial Court in accordance with law.
7. For the reasons noted above, both the revision petitions are accepted and impugned judgments/decrees dated 29-9-2001 and 22-3-2006 are set aside and case is remanded to the Court for fresh appointment of some revenue expert as local commissioner for demarcation of both the properties of the 'parties and then to decide their cases afresh,. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Kasur on 27-4-2007 for onward entrustment of cases to any learned Civil Judge for decision, as noted above. There will be no order as to costs as far as these revision petitions are concerned.