1. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners purchased Killa Nos.6 to 10 of Square No.17, situated in Rakh Kakki Kahna, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang. They applied forhe demarcation of the land which was done in the presence ofthe parties. Thereafter, the respondent also applied for the demarcation and got it done on 13-11-1986 in the absence of the petitioners. The petitioners challenged that order before the Collector who vide his order dated 15-12-1986 remanded the case to the Tehsildar/AC-I Shorkot for fresh demarcation. On remand, demarcation was again made by the Tehsildar on 16-3-1987. The petitioners went in appeal but the Collector dismissed the same.
2. The revision petition filed by the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner also failed on 2-2- 1988.
2. Aggrieved with the order dated 2-2-1988, the petitioner came up with the instant revision petition.
3. 3.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised the following contentions:-- (i)As a matter of fact, no measurement and demarcation were carried out at the spot.
4. Tehsildar/AC-1, Shorkot, simply okayed proceedings conducted by the Naib-Tehsildar/AC-II on 13- 11-1986.
5. (ii)No notice was served on the petitioners within the meaning of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968. At the same time the procedure as given in the said Rules, was not followed.
6. (i.e)The grandfather of the petitioners had passed away on 15-3-1987 and it was impossible for them to attend the proceedings regarding demarcation on 16-3-1987 as they were busy in his death ceremonies.
7. (iv)The proceedings in question were carried out in the absence of the petitioners and they were condemned unheard against the principle of natural justice.
8. (v)The Collector as well as the Additional Commissioner passed the orders without adverting to the fact as given in (iv) above.
4. The Learned Counsel for the respondent raised the following contentions in rebuttal:-- (a)The Tehsildar went to the site on 16-3-1987 while the grandfather of the petitioners had expired on 15-3-1987.
9. (b)The demarcation proceedings were duly carried out in the presence of the parties but the petitioners refused to sign the proceedings as was evident from the Daily Diary No. 278 dated 16-3- 1987.
10. (c)The concurrent findings of the Courts below did not admit of any interference in second revision.
11. (Reliance was placed on Revenue Rulings in Revision No.1814 of 1963-64 decided on 29-1-1966, Revisions Nos. 1348 to 1354 of 1964 decided on 29-1-1966 and Revisions Nos. 960 and 961 of 1964-65 decided on 13-1-1966.)
12. I have considered the arguments of the parties and have also examined the record of the case.
13. It is now a settled law that the concurrent findings on facts by the Court below should not be interfered with in revision It however does not mean that he errors in the application of law should be overlooked Rule 67-A of the Land ,' Revenue Rules 1968 has prescribed an exhaustive procedure for demarcation of land There is nothing on record to indicate that the requirements of law as given in Rule 67-A were met with in react of the demarcation under reference- When the rules prescribe a specific procedure for the performance of a particular Act then the said Act must be performed in accordance with the prescribed rocedure and in no other way. As the demarcation in this case has not been done in the light of the procedure given in Rule 67-A of the Land R Revenue Rules 1968 it is difficult to maintain the same. As the very demarcation is ab initio void, the subsequent orders of the Collector and the Addl. Commissioner in its support are without any legal affect. I would, therefore, accept the revision petition and set aside the orders of the Courts below. It is open to the parties to approach the Revenue Officer concerned for demarcation and the said Officer is bound to follow the prescribed procedure.