' CH. NAEEM MASOOD, J.--- I intend to dispose of Civil Revision No.1024 of 2002, Civil Revision No.1025 of 2002 and Writ Petition No.659 of 2008 through this single judgment as all the petitions involve the same facts and law and are between the same parties.
2. Briefly put the facts of the case, in chronological order, are that on 2-8-1993 the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiff has wagon stand constructed over.
Khasra No.50/23 on the land measuring 16 Marlas, situated (on Pacca Road South East corner) in Mailsi City and that the respondent Railway Authorities have no concern with his construction and that the order dated 21-6-1993. Passed by respondent No.2 General Manager, Pakistan Railways about demolishing the construction is illegal and the defendants Railway Authorities may be restrained to demolish the construction. It was further submitted that the construction_ of wagon stand of the plaintiff was in Khasra No.50/23, whereas, Pakistan Railways owns Khasra No.238. It was further asserted that the defendants were all set to demolish the wagon stand of the petitioner without getting the land fully demarcated from the Revenue Authorities.
3. The Pakistan Railways contested the' suit by filing written' statement asserting that the plaintiff was in illegal possession of the land in dispute owned by Pakistan Railways and that the plaintiff/petitioner is neither owner nor lease holder of the land in question and that the land is within 100 feet of railways track, therefore, the same cannot be disposed of to any body under the policy and that any construction over the land in dispute can trigger a serious accident.
4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether the order dated 21-6-1993 passed by defendant No.2 is illegal, void, ultra vires and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiff? OPD.
(2) ;Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action and locus standi to bring this suit? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiffs are trespassers? OPD
(5) Whether the suit is hit by res judicata? OPD
(6) Relief.
' The parties led their evidence. The plaintiff/petitioner appeared as P.W.1 and stated that he owned 16 Marlas in Khasra No.50/23 and that the Railways Authorities owned Khasra No.238. He, however, admitted that he was not shown as owner in the ownership column of Jamabandi Exh.P.3 and admitted that the land is for welfare of people (Mufade-aam).
' The defendants produced Syed Ashiq Hussain Bukhari D.W-1 who stated that Pakistan Railways had no concern with Khasra No.50/23 and this Khasra belongs to Committee and that Pakistan Railways owns Khasra No.238 over which plaintiff has constructed wagon stand in question and that the plaintiff is in illegal possession of the land of Pakistan Railways.
5. On 2-11-1993 the learned counsel of Pakistan Railways made a statement that Khasra No.50/23 is not owned by the Railway Authorities and it has no concern with it. On the same date i.e. 2-11-1993, the learned counsel of petitioner/plaintiff made a statement that Khasra No.50/23 is not owned by the petitioner/plaintiff and rather it is for welfare of public (Mufade-aam) and is in possession of the petitioner/plaintiff.
6. On 12-7-1994 the learned counsel of Pakistan Railways made a statement that Pakistan Railways had no concern with Khasra No.50/23 and that Railways Authorities is owner of Khasra No.238. After getting the demarcation of Khasra. No.50/23 they will not interfere in the possession of the petitioner/plaintiff.
7. The learned counsel of petitioner/plaintiff made a statement that the suit may be admitted because of commitment made by the learned counsel of Pakistan Railways.
8. On this the learned trial Court passed an order on the same date that the suit is dismissed as withdrawn in accordance with the statement of the learned counsel of Pakistan Railways that they will not interfere in the possession of the plaintiff.
9. The above narration is made to show that the demarcation of the land in question was sine qua non in the matter.
10. The demarcation was not followed to be made by either party. Instead application for contempt was made by petitioner against the respondents. Reply was submitted. On the evidence of the parties the following operative order was passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vehari on 11-12- 2001.
"I, therefore, decide this issue in favour of the petitioner with the direction that the respondents will not interfere in the area comprising Khasra No.50/23 measuring 16 Marlas where the petitioner has constructed this wagon stand as it was constructed prior to its demolish and hereby attach the property of the Railway Department adjacent to the disputed property till implementation of the order. The issue is decided in favour of the petitioner accordingly."
11. Against the above said order two appeals one by Pakistan Railways and other by Khan Brothers were filed before the learned Additional District Judge, Vehari who vide two orders dated 13-9-2002 passed the following operative order:--- " In the above said circumstances both the appeals are accepted and the case is remanded to the trial Court with the direction that it will get the demarcation conducted by the Revenue Authorities in presence of parties between Khewat Nos.238 and 50/23 above mentioned to ascertain that on which of the two Khewats the constructions were made by the respondents and demolished by the appellants. The trial Court for the ascertainment of the above said position can record further evidence, if required. The trial Court is directed to decide again the contempt application in accordance with law. The impugned order is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 28-9-2002."
12. Against the above order Civil Revisions Nos.1024 of 2002 and 1025 of 2002 have been filed.
13. The learned counsel of the petitioner vehemently contends that the impugned order suffers from illegality as the learned lower appellate Court itself could record the evidence and that trustworthy evidence of the petitioner has not been properly appreciated.
14. Learned counsel of Pakistan Railways and learned counsel of respondent No.6 as well as learned Assistant Advocate General have strongly supported the impugned order to be just and fair.
15. I have considered the arguments advanced from four corners and have perused the record.
16. The learned appellate Court's direction that the demarcation to be made first of all is quite in consonance with the statement of the learned counsel of Pakistan Railways in the suit on 12-7-1994 that demarcation shall be sine qua non to the further relationship between the parties. This statement was accepted by the learned counsel of the petitioner on 12-7-1994 and the suit was permitted to be withdrawn in the light of the reciprocal commitments.
17. Without resorting to the full-fledged demarcation of Khasra No.50/23 and Khasra No.238 (adjacent to each other), it was impossible to determine the respective claims of the parties.
Hence, the impugned order is just, fair, equitable and reasonable and does not invoke any interference.
18. Besides no illegality or material irregularity has been shown to have been committed in the impugned order.
19. Consequently, Civil Revision No.1024 of 2002 and Civil Revision 1025 of 2002 are dismissed. The impugned order dated 13-9-2002 is upheld. The Writ Petition No.3659 of 2008 is also dismissed as the same also challenges the proposal for joint demarcation of disputed land.
20. The parties are at litigation since 1993. Both the parties have reasonable interest in the property in dispute. Hence to add to the transparency, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vehari shall direct the learned Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab to constitute a committee of three responsible Revenue Officers headed by a Grade-19 Revenue Officer to conduct fair and meticulously transparent demarcation of Khasra No.50/23 and Khasra N'o.238 in question and to submit a report to that effect to the learned Senior Civil Judge within two months. The case shall preferably be decided within four months.
21. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vehari on 29-6-2009.