' This judgment shall decide Writ Petitions Nos.10287 and 10286 of 1995, as these proceed against a common order passed by respondents Nos.7 and 8.
2. The petitioner filed an application for demarcation of his land located in Chak No,477/GB Tehsil Samundri District Faisalabad. This application was filed before the Collector Sub-Division. A NaibTehsildar was appointed as Local Commissioner who inspected the site and conducted the proceedings and reported encroachment on the said land. The report was filed with said Collector who vide order, dated 6-2-1993 confirmed the same. Thereafer, he proceed to issue warrants for possession and private respondents were dispossessed. Their predecessor-in-interest, namely, Sher Muhammad filed appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Faisalabad Division, who vide order, dated 21-4-1993 allowed the appeals primarily for the reasons that the said Collector had proceeded in the matter in violation of the Land Revenue Rules.
1968. He consequently directed that the Circle Revenue Officer or Tehsildar to conduct demarcation within two months and parties were directed to appear before him on 29-4-1994. The petitioners filed revision petitions which were dismissed by respondent No,7 on 17-7-1995.
3. Learned counsel contends that since the demarcation was made by Local Commissioner appointed on the objection of the said Sher Muhammad, the consequent dispossession as a result of warrant of possession issued by the Collector was in order and respondents Nos.7 and 8 have acted without lawful authority while passing the impugned orders. No one has turned up for the respondents.
4. I have gone through the records. On 6-2-1993 (order available at page 24 of the file of Writ Petition No,10287 of 1995) the Collector proceeded to record the presence of the parties, and recorded order that the demarcation is in accordance with the procedure; that further proceedings are not required and file was sent to Tehsil to be consigned. On 13-2-1993 (order available as Annexure E at page 23 of the file of Writ Petition No,10286 of 1995) an application was put up before the Collector with an office report that demarcation was conducted, file has been consigned, let the matter be implemented. The Collector after hearing the petitioner and his counsel proceeded to issue an order that the warrant for possession be issued. According to the learned counsel respondents were dispossessed accordingly.
5. Now rule 67-B provides the contents of the application which is to be filed for eviction of unauthorised landowners. Sub-rule (4) provides that on the receipt of the application the Collector shall fix a date for its hearing and cause its notice together with copy of the application to be served on the respondents. Sub-rule (5) provides that after hearing the parties and examining the record, including file of demarcation proceedings Collector may direct fresh demarcation proceedings to be taken or accept the application and order eviction of the respondents. This is subject to the proviso that if question of title or intricate question of law is raised the Collector shall not pass any order on the merits of the application and shall refer the parties to the civil Court.
6. A bare reading of the said rule 67-B would show that all matters including the validity and correctness of the demarcation proceedings and report ought to be considered after filing of the said application under rule 67-B and after notice to the respondents and after hearing of the parties. In the present case the Collector without adopting the said procedure, without issuing notice to the respondents and of course without hearing them and without determining the correctness and validity of the report proceeded to dispossess the respondents. The learned Commissioner and learned Member have rightly held his proceedings to be coram non judice.
7. Both these writ petitions are without any force and are accordingly dismissed. Copy of this judgment is immediately remitted to the Collector, Sub-Division Samundari with a direction to immediately take steps to restore the possession of the respondents and thereafter to proceed in the matter in accordance with direction contained in the order of Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Faisalabad Division dated 21-4-1993. No order as to costs.