ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.---The petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to impugn the judgment and decree dated 28-8-2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala whereby appeal filed by the petitioners against dismissal of their suit for possession vide judgment and decree dated 20-9- 2010 by the learned Civil Judge, Gujranwala, has been dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge was confirmed.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner's that the learned Additional District Judge has passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 28-8-2012 without application of judicious mind based on misreading and non-reading of evidence, against law and facts and liable to set aside.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Brief facts leading to this civil revision are that the petitioners lodged a suit for possession of land after removal of superstructure against the respondents alleging their ownership on an area measuring 3-Kanals and 2-Marlas comprising Khasra No,762, Khewat No,63, Khatooni No,354 vide Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1998-99 situated at Mauza Ladhewala Warraich, Tehsil and District Gujranwala. They also averred in the plaint that the respondents by encroaching upon the disputed land had started construction thereupon and consequently petitioner No,1 had lodged a suit for permanent injunction before the Civil Court; that the learned Civil Judge during the proceedings of the said suit for permanent injunction had appointed Rana Muhammad Jamil Tehsildar Gujranwala as Local Commission for demarcation who submitted his report dated 13-10- 2003 indicating that the respondents have encroached upon the petitioner's land measuring 2/149/272 Marlas, hence the suit for possession.
5. Suit for possession was resisted by the respondents with the contentions that they are owner-in- possession of the suit land as co-sharer and that report of the Local Commission in earlier suit is not admissible in evidence. After framing of the issues on the divergent.Pleadings of the parties and recording of evidence produced by the parties, the learned trial court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 28-9-2010. Being aggrieved thereof the petitioners filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge through the impugned judgment and decree dated 28-8-2012, hence the instant revision petition.
6. Perusal of the record transpires that the petitioners are not exclusive owners of Khasra No,762, Khewat No,63, Khatooni No,354 rather the respondents are also co-sharers in the said Khata. It is also evident on the record that the suit for permanent injunction lodged by Muhammad Aslam and Ehsan Ullah wherein Rana Muhammad Jamil Tehsildar Saddar, Gujranwala was appointed as Local Commission has been dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioners vide statement dated 3-10-2006.
It is also pertinent to mention that in the instant case no fresh Local Commission was appointed by the court to conduct the demarcation, rather the plaintiffs opted to produce the said. Tehsildar as P.W.1 who stated that report dated 13-10-2003 (Exh.P.1) was prepared by him in the earlier suit and that Naqsha Tajawaz' (Exh.P.2) is part of the said report. While facing cross-examination he admitted it correct that Naqsha Tajawaz' was neither prepared nor signed by him. He also expressed his ignorance to the suggestion that the respondents are co-sharers in the said Khewat.
Admittedly he had never checked the revenue record to ascertain the ownership of the respondents. Report does not indicate the mode of demarcation adopted by the Local Commission. It also fails to show as to whether the contiguous Khasra Numbers as well as Khasra No,762 were duly measured and demarcated. Therefore such a report of the Local Commission cannot be termed as reliable piece of evidence.
7. At this stage it may be expedient to reproduce the provisions of sections 117 and 135 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, which reads below:--
117. Power of Revenue Officer to define boundaries. ---(1) A Revenue Officer may, for the purpose of framing any record or making any assessment under this Act, or on the application of any person interested, define the limits of any estate, or of any holding, field or other portion of an estate, and may, for the purpose of indicating those limits, require boundary marks to be erected or required.
(2) In defining the limits of any land under subsection (1), the Revenue Officer may cause boundary marks to be erected on any boundary already determined by, or by order of, any Court or Revenue Officer or any Forest Settlement Officer appointed under the Forest Act, 1927 (Act XVI of 1927), or restore any boundary mark already set up by, or by order of, any Court or any such officer.
135. Application for partition. ---Any joint owner of land may apply to a Revenue Officer for partition of his share in the land if-
(a) at the date of the application the share is recorded under Chapter VI as belonging to him; or
(b) his right to the share has been established by a decree which is still subsisting at the date; or
(c) a written acknowledgment of that right has been executed by all persons interested in the admission or denial thereof.
Since the petitioners are not the exclusive owners of Khewat No,63, Khatooni No,354, Khasra No,762 therefore they cannot claim possession of any land in the said Khasra Number without seeking partition of the joint Khata. Admittedly the disputed land is agricultural land. It is also admitted on the record that the petitioners have never moved the Revenue Officer for partition of the disputed land of the joint Khata under section 135 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 or for demarcation of the land owned by them under section 117 of the Act ibid. Therefore, simpliciter suit for possession under section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 is not maintainable.
8. It is therefore obvious that petitioner's suit for possession was rightly dismissed by the learned trial court through the impugned judgment and decree dated 28-9-2010. Learned Additional District Judge thoroughly scrutinizing the evidence produced by the parties has rightly dismissed the petitioners' appeal. The impugned judgment and decree dated 28-8-2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge therefore does not suffer from any misreading and non-reading of evidence. Petitioner has no case to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the courts below.
9. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree dated 28-8-2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala.
Therefore, this civil revision having no merit is dismissed in limine.