IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.- This petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, calls in question the order dated 20.11.1982 of the learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 16.7.1980 of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha Division, whereby the order of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Jauharabad dated 24.6.1980 was upheld in proceedings under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 (hereinafter called the Rules).
2. This case has a chequered history. Muhammad Sher petitioner herein, filed a suit on 31.7.1971 against Feroze Khan, the predecessor-in-interest of Fateh Khan etc. Respondents herein, in the civil court, for declaration that 56 Shisham trees standing in Killas No.5 and 6 of Rectangle No.18 and Killa No.5 of Rectangle No.19, situate in village Mangeor, Tehsil Khushab, District Sargodha, were owned by him.
3. The learned trial court, after appreciating the evidence, recorded a finding of fact that the disputed trees were standing on the land owned by the petitioner herein and decreed the suit vide judgment dated 27.11.1978. The respondents herein, filed Civil Appeal No.22 of 1979, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 5.7.1979 of the learned District Judge, Sargodha.
4. Meanwhile, in 1976, the respondents herein submitted an application under Rule 67-A to the Revenue Authorities for demarcation of land on the ground that to kanals of land owned by them have been encroached upon by the petitioner herein, in which one room and 35 trees were standing. Naib Tehsildar submitted report in favour of the respondents on 4.7.1976. The petitioner filed appeal, which was rejected by the Settlement Officer on 20.10.1977. Revision petition of the petitioner was also dismissed in default by the Additional Commissioner on 1.7.1979 and the application for restoration thereof was also rejected.
5. The respondent instituted a suit for possession of the aforesaid to kanals of land on 8.3.1977, which was dismissed by the learned trial court on 4.12.1979. On appeal, the learned District Judge, Sargodha, vide order dated 23.4.1980 altered the dismissal of the suit into one of rejection of plaint, with the observation that basically the dispute between the parties was with regard to demarcation of boundaries of their joint field and, therefore, the procedure provided in Rule 67-B should have been followed under which the Collector alone was competent to arrange the delivery of possession to the true owner and it is for the Collector to decide whether intricate question regarding title was involved in that case and if so, could refer the parties to the civil court. The petitioner failed to challenge this judgment before any competent forum.
6. Subsequently, Muhammad Sher petitioner filed a suit for declaration that he is owner of 54 trees of Shisham and order of the revenue authorities, whereby he was sought to be ejected from to kanals of encroached land was illegal. The plaint was however rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C, by the trial court on 9.9.1980. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed as withdrawn by the learned Additional District Judge, Khushab, on 10.2.1983.
7. Fateh Khan etc. Respondents filed an application under Rule 67-B to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Jauharabad for possession of to Kanals of land encroached upon by the petitioner. The application was accepted by order dated 24.6.1980 passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector. Jauharabad. The petitioner filed appeal against the said order before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Sargodha Division, which was also dismissed on 16.7.1980. The revision filed by the petitioner also met the same fate vide judgment dated 20.11.1982 passed by the learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.
8. Raja Mahmood Akhtar, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Local Commissioner was appointed in the first round of litigation between the parties on the application of the petitioner, who prepared a plan and submitted his report, in which he categorically stated that the trees in dispute were in the land of the petitioner. Raja Mahmood Akhtar submitted that this report and plan of the local commissioner was accepted by the civil court and on the basis thereof a decree was passed on 27.11.1978 in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, the revenue courts were not competent to go into the question which already stood determined by the civil court on 27.11.1978 and confirmed by the appellate decision of the District Judge dated 5.7.1979, which attained finality. It was argued that the only remedy available to the respondents was to challenge the aforesaid decision of the civil court before a proper forum. The same having not been done, the matter is hit by doctrine of past and losed transaction and the revenue courts could not have exceeded their jurisdiction to re-open the matter, which was also barred by the principle of res judicata.
9. Mr Nazar Hussain, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the civil in favour of the petitioner related to same trees planted in killas No.5 and 6 of Rectangle No.18 and killa No.5 of Rectangle No.19, but the present dispute relates to demarcation and possession of to kanals of land owned by respondents No.1 to 7 comprising Killa No.1 of Rectangle No.24 and Killas No.1 and 10 of Rectangle No.25, which the Revenue Courts alone were competent to decide under Rules 67-A and 67-B.
10. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with their able assitance. It is an admitted fact that the respondents submitted an application under section 117 of the Land Revenue Act 1967 for demarcation of the land owned by them. Consequently, the Settlement Officer appointed Muhammad Nawabship, Naib Tehsildar, Local Commissioner, who visited the spot and gave a report that the petitioner had encroached upon a piece of land measuring 2 kanals owned by the respondents. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the report was dismissed by the Settlement Officer vide order dated 20.10.1977 and was up held in revision by the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha. This was followed by an application submitted by the respondents under Rule 67-B for eviction of the petitioner, who was found to be in wrongful possession of the disputed land, as a result of demarcation proceedings taken under section 117 read with Rule 67-A. This application was accepted in favour of the respondents on 24.6.1980 by the Collector, as well as, by the appellate and revisional authorities, to which no exception can be taken in these proceedings. I am inclined to agree with the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that the dispute raised before the revenue authorities related to possession of the disputed land comprising Rectangle Nos.24 and 25, the ownership of which is not claimed by the petitioner and this fact has been conceded in his written statement submitted in the demarcation proceedings as is apparent from the observations made in para 8 of order dated 24.6.1980 passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Jauharabad.
In view of the above, I find no force in the writ petition, which is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.