 |
| Demarcation process. |
⚖️ حد بندی کے مقدمے میں اہم حقائق چھپانے اور غلط قانونی فورم اختیار کرنے کا نتیجہ کیا ہوتا ہے؟ لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ
📌 پس منظر
⚠️ ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ درخواست گزار نے کون سے اہم حقائق چھپائے؟
🏛️ ہائی کورٹ نے غلط قانونی فورم کے بارے میں کیا کہا؟
📚 عدالت نے کون سا قانونی اصول بیان کیا؟
✅ فیصلہ
📖 قانونی سبق
Must read Judgement.
Stereo HCJ DA 38
JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Writ Petition No.161 of 2026
Raja Hafeez-ur-Rehman
V/S
Member (Judicial-VI) etc.
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing
30.06.2026
Petitioner(s) by
Raja Habib-ur-Rehman and Raja Waqar Ilyas, Advocates.
Respondent(s) by
Mr. Imran Shaukat Rao, Assistant Advocate General with Waqas Ali Malik, NHA, Umar Awais Kiyani, ADCR and Sadher Mughal, DFO, Murree.
Mr. Waqas Ali Malik, Advocate for Respondent No.7.
JAWAD HASSAN, J. This judgment shall decide the titled petition as well as Writ Petition No.4185 of 2025 as both these petitions involve common questions of law and fact.
- This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the "Constitution") calls in question the vires of order dated 09.10.2025 passed by Member (Judicial-VI), Board of Revenue, Punjab whereby revision petition filed by the Petitioner against order dated 24.06.2025 of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi Division was dismissed. In the connected Writ Petition, the Petitioners have sought the issuance of appropriate directions to the Respondents not to alter or remove the existing permanent demarcation points, nor to affix new demarcation points merely on the basis of Google Maps, except in strict conformity with the procedure and mandatory requirements envisaged under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 (the "Act"), and the Rules framed thereunder. The Petitioners in both the writ petitions
Writ Petition No. 161 of 2026 Writ Petition No.4185 of 2025
are aggrieved by the demarcation carried out in the year 2010, which constitutes the genesis of the present litigation. Although both petitions arise out of the same demarcation proceedings and involve substantially identical questions of law and fact but the nature of the relief claimed therein is distinct.
Facts of W.P.No.161 of 2026
- Brief facts necessitating the filing of instant petition are that a demarcation of Khasra Nos.342 to 386, situated in Ahata Noor Khan, Tehsil and District Murree, was conducted by the Naib Tehsildar/CRO, Murree, culminating in a report dated 17.02.2023. Feeling dissatisfied with the said demarcation, the Respondent No.4 preferred an appeal under Section 161 of the "Act" before the Respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner, Murree which was accepted vide order dated 18.07.2024, whereby the demarcation report dated 17.02.2023 was set aside. The Assistant Commissioner further directed the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officials of the Forest Department for allegedly suppressing the existence of an earlier demarcation report dated 08.12.2010. Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid order, the Petitioner invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Respondent No.2/Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi under Section 164 of the "Act"; however, that petition was dismissed through order dated 24.06.2025. Against this order, the Petitioner filed revision petition before the Respondent No.1/Member (Judicial-VI), Board of Revenue, Punjab which was also dismissed vide order dated 09.10.2025 (the "impugned order"), hence this petition.
Facts of W.P.No.4185 of 2025
- Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this petition are that the Petitioners claimed to be the owners in possession of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 2474, 2475, 2476, 3042, 3135, 3138, 3327, 3329, 3388, 3389 and 3418, situated in Mouza Chahehan, Tehsil and District Murree. It is their case that the said land was acquired by the National Highway Department after due observance of the prescribed
Writ Petition No. 161 of 2026 Writ Petition No.4185 of 2025
legal formalities, whereupon compensation was duly paid to them. The Petitioners assert that notwithstanding the acquisition proceedings permanent demarcation points had earlier been installed by the Forest Department pursuant to the demarcation conducted in the year 2008. Their grievance is that the Respondents have now initiated the process of removing those existing permanent demarcation points and are seeking to install fresh demarcation points over the land in question. without lawful authority and without following the procedure prescribed by law, thereby adversely affecting their proprietary rights and allegedly infringing the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution.
Petitioners Submissions
- Learned counsel for the Petitioners inter alia argued that while passing the "impugned order" the Respondent No.1 has placed reliance upon the purported demarcation conducted in the year 2010, which, in fact, does not constitute a valid demarcation in terms of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968 (the "Rules") as 67-A(7) of the "Rules" mandates the preparation of an encroachment map as an essential component of the demarcation proceedings, which is conspicuously absent in the present case; that the "impugned order" has been passed in violation of Sections 116 and 117 of the "Act"; that the so-called demarcation report is merely a memorandum and carries no legal sanctity as a valid demarcation; that none of the forums below adverted to this fundamental legal defect while deciding the matter; that the Respondent No.4 in collusion with Respondents No.1 to 3, is attempting to unlawfully dispossess him from his ancestral property, including residential houses situated in Murree Dehati, measuring 846 Kanals and 10 Marlas; that the Respondent No. 1 also failed to consider or even address this material aspect while deciding the revision petition of the Petitioner.
Respondents' Submissions
- Learned Law Officer submitted report and parawise comments and supported the "impugned order". He also raised a preliminary
Writ Petition No. 161 of 2026 Writ Petition No.4185 of 2025
objection regarding the maintainability of the present petition. He further asserted that the Petitioners have concealed material facts from this Court as well as from the fora below which disentitled him to the discretionary relief sought through the present petition.
According to the report and parawise comments submitted by the Respondents in both the petitions, the Petitioners were declared as encroachers upon the Forest Department's land as per demarcation conducted in the year 2010 and 2008. It is further asserted that the said demarcation was never challenged by the Petitioners before any competent forum and, consequently, attained finality. It is further contended that the subsequent demarcation report dated 17.01.2023 is devoid of legal sanctity, particularly in view of the earlier demarcation having attained finality. It is also their stance that the subsequent demarcation report has, in any event, been set aside by Respondent No.3 vide order dated 18.07.2024 which order has been upheld upto the Board of Revenue.
Heard. Record perused. Determination by the Court
The gravamen of the Petitioner of present petition is that Respondent No.1, while passing the "impugned order", placed reliance upon a purported demarcation conducted in the year 2010, which, according to him, does not constitute a valid demarcation in the eyes of law and that the said demarcation proceedings were conducted in violation of Rule 67-A(7) of the "Rules" and non-compliance with Sections 116 and 117 of the "Act". While the stance of the Respondents is that the Petitioner is an encroacher upon the land of Forest Department in the light of demarcation conducted in the year 2010 which having never been challenged before any competent forum and attained finality and became binding upon the parties. It is also their stance that any subsequent demarcation, including the report dated 17.01.2023, is devoid of legal effect and significance as this report has been set aside by Respondent No.3 vide order dated 18.07.2024.
Writ Petition No. 161 of 2026 Writ Petition No.4185 of 2025
It is evident from the "impugned order" that first demarcation of the land was conducted on 08.12.2010 in compliance of this Court's order passed in W.P.No.1813 of 2010 jointly by Survey of Pakistan, Revenue Department, Forest Department and WWF and report in that aspect was also submitted before the Court. The available record reveals that the said demarcation was firstly challenged by the Petitioner through filing of suit for declaration, permanent and perpetual injunction before the Civil Court which was dismissed by way of judgment and decree dated 18.06.2014 and this judgment and decree was further assailed by him before the Additional District Judge which also met with the same fate vide judgment dated 31.05.2018. This judgment was thereafter challenged by the Petitioner through filing of Civil Revision No.78 of 2019 that was withdrawn by the Petitioner himself vide order dated 27.06.2023. Notwithstanding the aforesaid litigation history, the Petitioner failed to disclose these material facts either before the revenue authorities/forums below or before this Court. The concealment of such material proceedings, which directly relate to the validity and challenge to the demarcation of 08.12.2010, amounts to suppression of material facts and constitutes a serious attempt to mislead the fora concerned. A litigant seeking equitable and discretionary relief under the constitutional jurisdiction is under a bounden duty to make a full, fair and candid disclosure of all material facts; failure to do so renders him disentitled to any discretionary relief.
It is also evident that with regard to his dispute qua misplaced pillars, the Petitioner once again approached this Court through W.P.No.1965 of 2022 with the request for decision of his pending application before the Respondents and that writ petition was dismissed being not pressed vide order dated 01.07.2022 however, directions were issued to the concerned respondent to decide his application within a period of thirty days through a speaking order as per law. In pursuance to above said observations, demarcation report dated 17.01.2023 was prepared that was challenged by the Divisional
Writ Petition No. 161 of 2026 Writ Petition No.4185 of 2025
Forest Officer Murree through appeal in terms of Section 161 of the "Act" that was allowed and demarcation report was set aside vide order dated 18.07.2024. The Petitioner assailed aforesaid order through revision under Section 164 of the "Act" that too was dismissed vide order dated 24.06.2025.
- It is pertinent to add that the Petitioner has specifically taken a plea that the demarcation dated 17.01.2023 was carried out by the Respondents on the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.1965 of 2022. For clarity, para No.3 of the order passed in above said writ petition reads as under:
"3. Be that as it may, instant petition is dismissed as not pressed. Without making any comments on merits or demerits of the application referred hereinabove, respondent No.1 is, however, directed to decide the same after associating the petitioner as well as to all the concerned, by way of speaking order, strictly in accordance with law within 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of instant order".
A plain reading of the order reproduced hereinabove leaves no manner of doubt that this Court did not issue any direction for conducting a fresh demarcation of the disputed land; rather, while dismissing the petition as not pressed, the Respondent No.1 of that petition was merely directed to decide the application pending before him by way of a speaking order, after associating the Petitioner and other concerned parties, strictly in accordance with law. The order is conspicuously silent with regard to any direction mandating fresh demarcation proceedings therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that the aforesaid order required or authorized the conduct of a fresh demarcation is wholly misconceived and stems from a clear misreading and misinterpretation of the order passed by this Court. It appears that the Petitioner has attempted to attribute a meaning to the said order which neither flows from its plain language nor can be inferred therefrom by any reasonable interpretation. The scope of the direction was confined to the adjudication of the pending application
Writ Petition No. 161 of 2026 Writ Petition No.4185 of 2025
and nothing contained therein can be construed as a judicial mandate for undertaking fresh demarcation proceedings.
Under the scheme of the "Act" a demarcation conducted by a Revenue Officer is not immune from challenge. During the course of demarcation proceedings, any person likely to be affected thereby is entitled to participate in the proceedings and raise objections before the Revenue Officer concerned. Section 117 of the "Act" empowers the Revenue Officers to define and determine the boundaries of estates, holdings, and divisions of land, thereby ensuring certainty with respect to ownership, possession, and liability for land revenue. Demarcations carried out in exercise of such statutory authority are accorded legal sanctity and are intended to prevent and resolve boundary disputes. Where a party is aggrieved by a demarcation report, it may, in the first instance, seek correction of any alleged error relating to measurements, boundary marks, or factual inaccuracies before the Revenue Officer who conducted or approved the demarcation. Thereafter, if dissatisfied with the order passed on the demarcation proceedings, the aggrieved party may avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 161 of the "Act" within the prescribed period of limitation. Furthermore, where the circumstances so warrant, the legality, propriety or regularity of the demarcation proceedings and the orders passed thereon may also be examined by the revisional authority in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 164 of the "Act".
In present case, the Petitioner did not avail the remedies provided under the "Act" against the demarcation conducted on 08.12.2010 pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1813 of 2010. Instead, he opted to institute a suit for declaration, permanent and perpetual injunction before the Civil Court. Such a course was legally misconceived as Section 172 of the "Act" expressly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of matters falling within the exclusive domain of the Revenue Authorities under the "Act". Consequently, any grievance arising out of the said demarcation could
Writ Petition No. 161 of 2026 Writ Petition No.4185 of 2025
only be agitated through the remedies available under the revenue hierarchy, including appeal and revision, and not by way of a civil suit. The Petitioner's failure to invoke the statutory remedies provided by law and his resort to a forum lacking jurisdiction cannot confer legitimacy upon his challenge to the demarcation proceedings. It is not out of place to add here that the Petitioners in the connected writ petition have neither availed the statutory remedies available under the "Act", nor have they approached the competent revenue authorities for redressal of their alleged grievance. Instead, they have invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court at the very threshold by filing the present writ petition, seeking merely to restrain the Respondents from removing the existing demarcation points or installing fresh demarcation points. Thus, in the absence of any prior recourse to the competent statutory forum or any determination by the revenue authorities, the Petitioners have sought preventive directions from this Court without first exhausting the remedy provided by law.
- In the "impugned order" the Respondent No.1 has rightly observed that:
"Prior to this demarcation report dated 17.02.2023, earlier demarcation of the land in question was conducted on 08.12.2010 in compliance of order of Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in writ petition No.1813/2010. The said report was not challenged by anyone; hence the same attained finality. Subsequently, another demarcation report dated 17.02.2023 was prepared which has no legal sanctity in presence of earlier demarcation report. The respondent assailed the report dated 17.02.2023 through appeal which was rightly accepted by the Assistant Commissioner, Murree vide order dated 18.07.2024 whereby the demarcation report dated 17.02.2023 was set aside. Then revision petition filed by the petitioner against the said order of Assistant Commissioner was rightly and justifiably dismissed by the Addl. Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi Division through his well-reasoned and comprehensive order dated
Writ Petition No. 161 of 2026 Writ Petition No.4185 of 2025
24.06.2025 which has been assailed through this revision petition. The instant revision petition has been filed against the concurrent orders passed by the lower courts after hearing contentions of the parties and consultation of record".
After having gone through the dictions of the forum below, this Court is of the candid view that the Petitioners have failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the "impugned order" warranting interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The exercise of constitutional jurisdiction in terms of Article 199 of the "Constitution" is discretionary which can only be invoked in extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. This Court while invoking its constitutional jurisdiction always exercises restraint in interfering with the judgment or order passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction unless some perversity or patent illegality is floating on the surface of record. The constitutional jurisdiction can only be exercised in such an eventuality if the impugned judgment or order suffers with certain legal infirmities or patent illegalities, resulting into failure of justice.
The nutshell of the above discussion is that the findings of forum below are in consonance with law, calling for no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. This being so, these petitions fail and are dismissed.
(JAWAD HASSAN) JUDGE