' The petitioner, who is one of the defendants, has challenged through the instant revision petition the concurrent findings of the two Courts below by which the plaintiff-respondent's suit for possession of disputed area, encroached upon by the defendants which was found on the basis of a demarcation proceedings, was decreed.
2. The plaintiff after feeling that some of his property has been encroached upon by the defendants submitted an application to the Revenue Officer for the demarcation of the property. The Revenue Officer in consequence of the said application deputed Girdawar Circle for the purpose who after conducting the demarcation proceedings found some area of the plaintiff to have been encroached upon by some of the adjacent owners, some of whom left the encroached area while the defendant-petitioner refused to concede to the claim of the plaintiff. The Girdawar Circle submitted his report to the Revenue Officer Exh. P.W.2/1 along with site plan showing the encroached area Exh. P.W.2/2 who (the Revenue Officer) after endorsing the same consigned the file to the Record Room. The plaintiff on the basis of said report which was endorsed by the Revenue Officer filed the instant suit for possession on the basis of said proceedings.
3. Some of the defendants contested the suit by submitting written statement as a result of which issues were framed, evidence pro and contra was recorded. The learned trial Court also felt necessity to further ascertain the correct position, issued a Commission and Noor Zaman, retired Girdawar was appointed as Commissioner to conduct the demarcation proceedings who did accordingly on which objections were called for, which were filed by the defendants. The Commissioner was summoned whose statement was recorded and ultimately on the basis of the evidence on record including the demarcation proceedings conducted prior to the institution of the suit and in confirmation of the said again were conducted during the proceedings of the case and it was found that the area of the plaintiff has been encroached upon by the defendants and consequently the decree for possession was passed in respect of the disputed property.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made two-fold submissions, firstly, that the demarcation proceedings should have been conducted by the Revenue Officer himself which is, according to them, a requirement of law and secondly, that the demarcation proceedings have not been properly conducted. With regard to the first contention, he submitted that according to section 117 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 read with Rule 67-A, the Girdawar Circle or any other official who is not the Revenue Officer is not competent to conduct the demarcation proceedings but it was found that rule 67-A has been added by the Punjab Government in November, 1973 and which rule has not been added or incorporated by the N.-W.F.P. Government and thus it is not applicable to this Province. As regards section 117, though the Revenue Officer has been empowered to define the limits of any estate or any holding or field or other portion of an estate, but it does not mean that the Revenue Officer by himself would go to the spot and conduct the entire proceedings and he could not do the same through any other person well-conversant with the job and of whom he is satisfied to do the same correctly and it cannot be inferred from the section by any stretch of imagination that unless he (the Revenue Officer) has conducted the demarcation proceedings himself, those would be a nullity. What the section conveys is that he is the person who has empowered or authorised to define the limits and on the spot may be through any other person but the final decision would be of his. In the present suit that requirement has been fulfilled when the application was submitted to the Revenue Officer, he appointed the Girdawar Circle for the purpose and after receiving his report, he endorsed the same, thus in this case it is he (the Revenue Officer) who gave the final decision with regard to the encroachment and on the basis of which the suit was filed and if the Court has issued another commission i,e, for further ascertaining the correct position would not be for the petitioner to make out of it something, otherwise the previous demarcation proceedings conducted as a result of the order of the Revenue Officer are sufficient to meet the claim of the plaintiff. The report of the demarcation proceedings is Exh.P.W.2/1 shows that the parties were present at the relevant time and the present petitioner Sher Ali who is now the only person agitating the matter was shown to be present at that time and not acceding to the demand of the plaintiff even at that time. The defendant even otherwise having a hurdle in their way to raise any objection on the finding of the Revenue Officer as he did not file any appeal, revision etc. Provided under the Land Revenue Act after feeling himself aggrieved of the said order and thus the said order would be considered as final as no violation of rules etc. Were pointed out by the petitioner in the conduct of the demarcation proceedings.
' Resultantly, this revision petition fails which is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.