MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ J.- This application for dispensing with filing of certified copies of annexure "A to H" to the W.P. Is allowed and disposed of.
Main Case According to the petitioner, respondent No. 4 made an application to the respondent No. 2 for conducting demarcation as per provisions of Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 read with Rule 67-A of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968. Some demarcation proceedings were conducted which according to the learned counsel were so conducted ' without notice to the petitioner. A report was compiled on 4.3.2000 and it appears that some encroachment was found on the land of the respondent ^No. 4 attributable to the petitioner; According to the learned counsel, the petitioner filed an appeal against he said report dated 4.3.2000 which came- up before respondent No. 1 who has vide ah order announced on 3.5.2O0O dismissed the appeal.
2. Learned counsel contends that an application for the copy of the said order in appeal has been filed but the Copying Agency has given a date of 6.5.2000 for delivery of the copy. An apprehension has been expressed that the respondents might dispossess the petitions; from the suit land.
3. This Writ Petition appears to be misconceived. Under Section 117 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, the Revenue Officer is empowered to define the limits of any estate or holding a part of an estate. Rule 67-A of the said Rules. 1968 provides the manner in which the application for demarcation is to be filed and the proceedings are to be conducted. When a report is made under the said Rule 67-A, in case the land owner wishes to obtain possession of the land encroached, an application is filed under Section 122 of the Punjab, Land Revenue Act, 1967 read with Rule 67-B of the said Rules .Whereupon the Collector Sub-Division (respondent No. 1) issues a notice to the opposite party and after hearing can pass the various orders given in Sub-Rule (5) of 'he said Rule 67-B. At the moment, only a report has been prepared and it is open to doubt as to whether an appeal could be filed against that report because no order executable or otherwise has so far been passed against the petitioner.
4. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition being misconceived is dismissed in limine.