' In consequence of demarcation proceedings the AC/Collector, Muzaffargarh issued warrant of possession in respect of Khasras Nos.92/12, 13, 14 measuring 1 Kanals 12 Marlas of village Sadey Wain, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh. The petitioners, challenged that order, in appeal before the Additional Commissioner who rejected the same. Hence this revision petition under section 164 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that there was a common boundary line between the two revenue estates, i,e,, Sadey Wain and Kamalpur. The Consolidation operations were completed in 1976 in village Sadey Wain and its outer boundary line was ascertained and demarcated. The Consolidation operations in village Kamalpur were taken in 1979 and the common boundary line between the two revenue estates was confirmed. Fields Nos.92/12, 13 and 14 of Sadey Wain and Nos. 22/13 and 17 of Kamalpur face the common boundary line between these villages. The petitioners, are alleged to have trespassed into Sadey Wain to the extent of 1 Kanal 12 Marlas. The demarcation proceedings on the application of the respondents were always held in the absence of the petitioners,. The Commission which conducted the measurements on 9-104987 only measured the dimensions of certain fields in routine without going into the totality of the village. A fresh demarcation was undertaken on 22-2-1988 but again action on the correct lines was not taken. The trignometric pillar was not available at the site and therefore correct measurements could not be taken. In any case, question of title to the extent of 1 Kanal 12 Marlas was involved and the Collector instead of deciding himself should have referred the case to the Civil Court.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent, maintained that their land in Sadey Wain had been encroached upon by the petitioners, to the extent of 1 Kanal 12 Marlas, and that demarcation proceedings were carried out on their application, and that the petitioners, did not participate in these proceedings deliberately. All boundary pillars, of Sadey Wain were found intact and in their places in both the demarcation proceedings. The petitioners, were not owners, in village Sadey Wain but they were owners, in Kamalpur. If there was any shortfall in their entitlement they could seek their remedy in the Kamalpur revenue estate but not in Sadey Wain and therefore the revision petition may be dismissed.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record as well as the record of the demarcation proceedings. Khasras numbers, 92/12, 13 and 14 of Sadey Wain revenue estate are owned by the respondents and there is a shortfall in their area which both the demarcation proceedings have attributed to the encroachment by the petitioners, who are owners, of adjoining Khasra numbers, in village Kamalpur. The demarcation proceedings were held by the Commission on 9-10-1987 and the petitioners, were duly aware of these proceedings yet they chose not to participate in these proceedings due to their reported engagements elsewhere. However, it is clear that this demarcation was limited to the extent of Sadey Wain village only in which the petitioners, were held to be encroachers, to the extent of 1 Kanal 12 Mamas. In the subsequent proceedings ordered by the Collector vide his order dated 22-2-1988 again the demarcation was limited to the extent of the respondents' land but one boundary pillar was not found to be existent at the spot.
The petitioners, were not present on the occasion of the firs,t demarcation held on 27-5-1982.
However, one of their relatives was present in whose presence these proceedings were taken. The Collector vide his order dated 12-12-1988 held that the petitioners, had encroached upon 1 Kanal 12 Mamas of land and if they were not satisfied with the demarcation proceedings of respondents' land then they could have applied for demarcation of their land in Kamalpur. According to the report of the Naib-Tehsildar dated 19-4-'988 the boundary line of Kamalpur could not be established because the boundary pillars, could not be found.
5. I am inclined to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the case has to be seen in its totality as piecemeal demarcation of individual holding will not be of much use or benefit to either party. If the petitioners, are said to have encroached upon 1 Kanal 12 Marlas land, then the land under their possession should'also have been measured by the same Revenue Officer. If it was found that their basic entitlement has been fully met in Kamalpur only then they can be accused of trespassing into the lands of others,. In that case the measurements of the adjoining properties should also be made to determine where the fault lies. I, therefore, accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned orders, and remand the Case as Assistant Commissioner/Collector of the concerned Sub-Division under hose supervision the demarcation proceedings shall be carried out in the presence of the parties. At least one week's notice should be given for the demarcation proceedings to the respondents and the petitioners, shall themselves contact the Assistant Commissioner/Collector for fixing the date of demarcation, to obviate the possibility of their non-participation in the demarcation proceedings, within two months of the date of this order.