IN THE COURT OF M.
SHIRAZ KAYANI
DISTRICT JUDGE ATTOCK
Civil Appeal No.340 of 27.10.2018
Date of Institution: 27.10.2018
Date of Decision: 22.04.2019
RAJA KHAN SON OF JUMMA KHAN CASTE JANJUA RESIDENT OF MAUZA
BAHTAR TEHSIL FATEH JANG, DISTRICT ATTOCK. APPELLANT
Versus
1. PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB LAHORE 2. GOVERNMENT INTER COLLEGE FOR
BOYS BAHTAR TEHISL FATEH JANG, DISTRICT ATTOCK THROUGH PRINICPAL
INTER COLLEGE FOR BOYS BAHTAR 3. DISTRICT GOVERNMENT ATTOCK
THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR DCO DISTRICT ATTOCK. 4. COLLECTOR DISTRICT
ATTOCK. 5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TEHSIL FATEH JANG 6. TARIQ
MAHMOOD SON OF FAZAL ELLAHI CASTE AWAN RESIDENT OF MAUZA BAHTAR
TEHSIL FATEH JANG, DISTRICT ATTOCK. RESPONDENTS
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 25.09.2018
Appellant by: Syed M. Ayub Bukhari, Advocate
Respondents by : Mr. Mazhar Masood Khan
Advocate
Date of hearing 22.04.2019
JUDGMENT
22.04.2019
1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and
decree dated 25.09.2018, passed by Mr. Kamran Zaheer Abbasi,
learned Civil Judge, Attock, by virtue of which he dismissed the suit
for possession filed by the appellant.
2. Necessary facts giving rise to the controversy in hand are
that appellant Raja Khan instituted a civil suit No.402-T of 2015 on
29.03.2012 for possession of the suited property fully described in
the head note of his plaint claiming to be owner in possession of land
measuring 90-Kanal 9-Marla according to Register Haq Daran-e-
Zameen for the year 2008-2009 whereas defendants Nos.1 to 5
having their adjacent property to the owned Khasra No.1351/1 and
1357 situated at Mauza Bahtar owned by Tariq Mahmood who sold
the same to the defendants whereupon they started construction of
Government Inter College for Boys Bahtar Tehsil Fateh Jang over
which the plaintiff filed a civil suit against the contractor and
education department which was decreed by learned Civil Judge
Raja Khan Vs. Province of Punjab Etc. 2
Civil Appeal No.340 of 2018
Hassanabdal but despite of the said decision the defendant had
constructed the said building and while encroaching upon adjacent
property of plaintiff, who constrained to move his application to the
Collector Attock for demarcation which was carried out through the
Field Revenue Staff on 31.12.2011 and the report submitted
according to which the defendant found having encroached over a
land measuring 23-Kanal 10-Marlas for which the plaintiff time and
again asked the defendant to restore the possession of encroached
land but all in vain hence this suit.
3. The suit was hotly contested by the defendants and the
learned trial Court after taking into consideration the divergent
pleadings of the parties casted necessary issues and thereafter
recording oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties
dismissed the suit, hence this appeal.
4. I heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the record.
5. It is emerged during the scanning of record that the
demarcation of the suited land was carried out by the Field Revenue
Staff over an application moved by the plaintiff/appellant under Rule
67-A of Land Revenue Rules 1968 and during the demarcation, the
defendants found having encroached over the land in question
according to encroachment sketch annexed with the report of
demarcation and instead of seeking the eviction by the plaintiff/
appellant under Rule 67-B of Land Revenue Rules 1968, approached
to the learned Civil Court through the suit for possession in hand
which was not even maintainable and what to say the proceedings
carried out by the learned Trial Court. Astonishingly the learned trial
Court cannot take in question the legality or illegality of the
demarcation carried out by the Field Staff of Revenue under Rule 67-
A of the Land Revenue Rules 1968, so the impugned Judgment and
decree to that extent for rejection of the said demarcation report is
not sustainable whereas the suit in hand was simply liable to be
rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC being barred by Section 172
of the Land Revenue Act read with Rule 67-B of the Land Revenue
Rules 1968. Hence, the appeal in hand is dismissed. However, the
appellant may have to approach to the Collector/Assistant
Commissioner Fateh Jang through his eviction petition under Rule
Raja Khan Vs. Province of Punjab Etc. 3
Civil Appeal No.340 of 2018
67-B of the said rules, if he so desired but subject to law of
limitation. There is no order as to costs. Copy of this Judgment along
with record of learned trial Court be sent back forthwith, for
information and updating the record. File shall be consigned to the
record room after its due completion.
Announced (M. Shiraz Kayani)
22.04.2019 District Judge
Attock
It is certified that this judgment consists of three (03) pages,
those have been dictated, read, corrected and signed by me.
District Judge
Attock
