' The dispute between the parties relates to the demarcation of plots bearing khasra No, 89/2/7 belonging to the petitioner and plot bearing Khasra No, 8912/8 belonging to the respondents 4 to 12.
Khasra No, 89/2/6 belongs to respondents Nos. 13 to 15, but the case of this plot is slightly different from the plots Nos. 7 and 8.
2. Out of Khasra No, 89 three plots of 100 ft. x 190 ft. Were chalked out by the Government to whom the entire khasra number belonged and were disposed of by auction to the predecessor-in- interests of the present owners. Plots Nos. 6, 7 and 8 out of Khasra No, 89/2 lie in the same line with a width of 100 ft. Each. The present controversy started when the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 4 to 12 applied to the Revenue Officer for demarcation of his plot. On this application a notice was given to the petitioner to join the demarcation proceedings. Notice dated 26-8-1978 was challenged by the petitioners in revision before the Additional Commissioner who on 15-1-1979 held that under section 3 of the Land Revenue Act, the revenue authorities had no power to demarcate the land as the area fell within the municipal limits of Sargodha city. This order was, however, set aside by the learned Member, Board of Revenue on 4-3-1980. After the orders of the Member, Board of Revenue, the NaibTehsildar after visiting the spot made demarcation of the plots after measurement on 6-11-1980. He found that the owners of plot No, 6 have encroached upon a strip of 261 x 190 feet of plot No, 7 and plot No, 7 in turn has eaten into a similar area of plot No,
8. In addition to this a strip of three feet wide along the entire length has been encroached upon by the Agricultural Development Bank which lies on the other side of plot No,
8. The petitioner had not joined the demarcation proceedings before the Naib-Tehsildar in spite of notice, but subsequently on his application the matter was taken up by the Tehsildar who after associating the petitioner confirmed the finding of the Naib Tehsildar on 23-12-1980. The Assistant Commissioner passed orders on 15.2-1981 directing the petitioner to vacate the land encroached upon by him of plot No, 8.
This order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Additional Commissioner who dismissed the appeal on 12-8-1981. His subsequent revision in the Board of Revenue met with the same fate on 1.9-1981. The petitioner then challenged the orders of the Revenue Courts in the present writ petition. The writ petition was admitted to consider the question whether under section 3 (1) of the Land Revenue Act, the revenue authorities have any jurisdiction to enter into the demarcation of the land in question as the area was the site of a town.
3. It is true that section 3(1) of the Land Revenue Act lays down that the Land Revenue Act will not apply to land which is occupied as the site of a town or village except for the purposes of survey, record or assessm ent of a cess, but this provision has to be read with sections 116 and 117 of the Land Revenue Act. Section 116 deals with question of survey and preparation of record of rights, but section 117 is clearly attracted to the circumstances of the present case. Under this provision a revenue officer for the purposes of preparation of records or assessment of a cess may on his own motion or on the application of the interested person demarcate the boundaries of an estate.
Section 3 (1) read with section 117, therefore, gives the owners to the revenue_officer to enter upon the question of the demarcation o estates, even when the land is located within the city. The contention of the learned counsel that the jurisdiction of the revenue officers is barred under section 3 (1) of the Land Revenue Act is, therefore, devoid of force.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued at great length that the Revenue officers in deciding the question of demarcation between plots Nos. 7 and 8 have not taken any steps to make a demarcation between plots Nos. 6 and 7. It is contended by the learned counsel that the piecemeal demarcation is an improper exercise of jurisdiction. I am afraid, there is no force in this argument. First of all, it was the respondent whd made,an application for demarcation of his plot.
This involved only two other parties, the present petitioner and the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan. On this application the Revenue Officer visited the spot and gave a finding that plot No, 6 had encroached upon plot No, 7 and to a similar extent plot No, 7 has encroached upon plot No,
8. The Revenue Officer, therefore, has given a complete finding regarding all the three plots in question. Since it were respondents Nos. 4 to 12 alone who made a grievance out of it, the Assistant Commissioner confined himself to the question of demarcation between plot No, 7 and plot No, 8 only.
5. It appears that the owners of plot No, 6 pushed themselves into plot No, 7, the owners of which in turn pushed themselves into plot No,
8. The remedy of the petitioner, therefore, lies in proceedings against the owners of plot No, 6 and he cannot claim that the implementation of the orders of demarcation between his plot and plot No, 8 should wait till the decision of demarcation between his plot and plot No,
6. The two shall have to be independent and separate proceedings and the one cannot be made contingent on the other. The petitioner may proceed against the owners of plot No, 6, if he is so advised. The owners of plot No, 6 have been impleaded as respondents 13 to 15, but in view of the fact that these persons were impleaded as party for the first time only before the Board of Revenue and had not been associated with the demarcation at any of the levels before that, no judgment can be given against the respondents 13 to 15 in course of the present writ petition. The petitioner has to seek his independent remedy against them before the revenue officer in the same manner as respondents 4 to 12 did against him.
6. In view of the above considerations, the writ petition is dismissed with costs.