The petitioners seek revision of the judgment and decree dated 21-1-1988 whereby the suit for possession filed by the respondent was decreed and the appellate judgment and decree dated 15- 11-1992 whereby the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The petitioners' learned counsel strenuously urged that demarcation conducted by the Patwari was illegal and could not be relied upon. In this connection he places reliance on the judgment reported as Malik Imtiaz Ahmad and 2 others v. Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Khushab and 4 others (1990 CLC 915). His emphasis is that the demarcation could have been conducted by a competent Revenue Officer and not the Patwari. The above argument of the petitioners' learned counsel has considerable weight but even if the demarcation Exh.P.l is excluded from consideration, still the respondent's claim of ownership is independently proved by other evidence including the Jamabandi Exh.P.2 and Khasra Girdawari Exh.P3. The Jamabandi, to which a presumption of truth is attached shows that the respondent is owner of Khasra No. 201/2 measuring 6 Kanals and 11 Marlas. The Khasra Girdawari shows cultivating possession of the respondent till April, 1985. In his plaint the respondent had specifically alleged that Qadir Bakhsh, the predecessor-in--interest of the petitioners had encroached upon 16 Marlas of the land out of Khasra No. 201/2. In his written statement Qadir Bakhsh deceased, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had merely claimed that the disputed property was Abadi Deh and in his possession for the last about 60 years. He never claimed that the property in his possession formed part of a different Khasra number. His claim that the disputed property bearing Khasra No.201/2 is Abadi Deh and is belied by the Jamabandi Exh.P.2 which shows that Muhammad Nawaz respondent is its exclusive owner. The petitioners' learned counsel vainly tried 'to urge that the disputed property stands acquired by the TDA and was not owned by the respondent. No such plea was raised before the Courts below and it cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time at the revisional stage.
3. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.