' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this civil revision, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree dated 7-1-1997 passed by Additional District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan whereby appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 15-2-1996 passed by Civil Judge 1st Class, Rahim Yar Khan decreeing the suit filed by respondent No.1 Wahid Bakhsh was maintained.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 instituted a suit for possession on 10- 12-1991 with regard to the suit-land measuring 1 kanal, 13 marlas, fully described in the head note of the plaint. He averred in the plaint that he had got the said land including other land total measuring 4 kanals through an exchange mutation (Mutaion No.4711 sanctioned on 7-5-1991) from Shafiq Ahmad and others and states that now defendants Nos.1 to 3 have forcibly taken the possession of the suit plot and have constructed four-wall and, thus, have included his property in their four-wall.
3. Written statements were filed and the learned trial Court after framing the issues invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Learned trial Court also appointed Tehsildar Khanpur as local commission to file report with regard to the actual position and possession of the suit property at the spot. Local commission visited the spot and filed the report. The petitioners- defendants Nos.1 to 3 filed objections on the -report of the local commission. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 15-2-1996 decreed the suit. The petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan vide his judgment and decree dated 7-1- 1997.Hence this civil revision.
4. Today no one appeared on behalf of the respondents, therefore, ex parte arguments of the learned counsel as well as A.A.-G. Appearing on behalf of the petitioners have been heard and record perused.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.A.-G. State that trial Court was not competent to appoint local commission to determine the position at the spot for demarcation of the suit property as the property is within the city constructed area; that the Court has given its powers to the local commission which is not permissible under the law; that when the objections were raised on the report of local commission trial Court was bound, under the law, to frame an issue in this regard on the objection's of the petitioners and decide the same before deciding the suit and that stand taken in the suit by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is contradictory with his oral as well as documentary evidence. They have referred to statement of Anwar Hassan P.W.1, the local commission/author of report Exh. P-1 who has admitted' that he had neither issued any notice to the Province of Punjab nor to the Deputy Director, Agriculture i.e. Defendant No.2. The learned counsel for petitioners further stated that in accordance with copy of register haqdaraan zameen for the year 1987-1988, Exh.P-2 which was produced by the plaintiff himself, the alleged suit land Rectangle No.432/6 Killa No.12- Alif measuring 1 kanal, 13 marlas is shown as "Ghyr mumkin sarrak" which is clearly in contradiction of the claim of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 that this land is in possession of Agriculture Department and they have encroached 'upon this land and have constructed four-wall. The same is the position in Exh.P-3 which is register haqdaraan zameen for the year 1991-1992
6. I have observed that in order to show his ownership, respondent No.1 has produced Exh.P-4 which is copy of register haqdaraan zameen for the year 1991-92. Khewat No.498/519. This khata is comprising of 32 kanals, 2 marlas and shares are 657 of the owners wherein plaintiff- respondent No.1 is only owner of 36 shares in this total khata. No "tatimma" has been carved out in accordance with law. According to Exh.D-2 Agriculture Department is owner of 8 kanals of land in A Khata No.530/517 register haqdaraan zameen for the year 1987-1988. The possession of Agriculture Department has been shown in Rectangle No.432/6 Killa No.11-Alif, measuring 2 kanals, 4 marlas and in Killa No.12, 5 kanals, 16 marlas. In this way petitioners are in possession of 8 kanals of land which is owned by them, it is also not the case of the plaintiff/respondent that petitioners are in possession of land more than their owned land.
7. When the report of local commission is scrutinized in the light of the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 himself, it makes clear that the report is false as the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was not exclusive owner of the suit property as alleged by him. The Revenue Record produced by him is against his version. There is road on the suit-land measuring 1 kanal, 13 marlas. There were serious objections raised on the report of the local commission by the petitioners-defendants. Which were not attended to by the trial Court as well as first appellate Court. The trial Court and the first appellate Court have mostly recorded findings on the basis of this report of local commission which was not reliable as it is B against the Revenue Record. The local commission also admitted that he had not issued notice to the Province of Punjab as well as Deputy Director Agriculture, defendant No.2. There was no independent and reliable evidence to decree the suit. I have noticed that even the local commission has not observed the instructions with regard to demarcation issued by the Board of Revenue. When it was a constructed area, demarcation proceedings were to be conducted with full care and caution. I have further noticed that Patwari. Of Halqa along with relevant record of the land in dispute was not present at the time of spot inspection and the Revenue Record has not been relied upon as referred at the time of preparation of the report,
8. The report of focal commission is not reliable, Revenue Record is against plaintiff/respondent, there was no evidence available with the trial court to decree the suit.
' In view of the above disdission. Findings recorded by both the Courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence available on record further the findings are in clear violation of legal position of suit land being part of joint khata, therefore, the same are not sustainable under the law. Accordingly, I accept this civil revision and set aside the judgments and decrees of both the courts below with the result that the suit of plaintiff-respondent No.1 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.