دریائی کٹاؤ سے زمین کی حدود مٹ جائیں تو حد بندی کا اختیار کس کو حاصل ہے؟ — 2026 CLC 1498
زمین کی حد بندی اور دو اضلاع یا ڈویژنوں کے درمیان حدود کے تعین کے معاملات میں متعلقہ ریونیو افسر کے قانونی اختیار کی بڑی اہمیت ہے۔ اگر کوئی افسر اپنے دائرۂ اختیار سے باہر کارروائی کرے تو اس کی قانونی حیثیت متاثر ہو سکتی ہے۔
اس مقدمے میں دریائی کٹاؤ کی وجہ سے زمین کی حدود کے نشانات مٹ گئے تھے، جس کے باعث ضلع اوکاڑہ اور ضلع بہاولنگر کے درمیان حد بندی کا تنازع پیدا ہوا۔ دونوں علاقوں کے ریونیو افسران نے حد بندی کے لیے کمیٹیاں تشکیل دیں، لیکن یہ کارروائیاں ان کے علاقائی دائرۂ اختیار سے باہر تھیں اور ریکارڈ پر بورڈ آف ریونیو کی واضح اجازت بھی موجود نہیں تھی۔
معاملے میں یہ بھی سامنے آیا کہ حد بندی کی درخواست میں قانون کے مطابق ضروری تفصیلات موجود نہیں تھیں۔ متاثرہ افراد کو مناسب نوٹس اور سماعت کا موقع دیے بغیر کارروائی کی گئی، جبکہ 25 اکتوبر 2022 کو ہونے والی جی پی ایس حد بندی کے لیے متعلقہ سروے کرنے والے شخص اور آلات کی مطلوبہ تصدیق کا ثبوت بھی دستیاب نہیں تھا۔
بورڈ آف ریونیو پنجاب کے ممبر جوڈیشل نے قرار دیا کہ ایسی کارروائی میں قانونی طریقۂ کار، علاقائی دائرۂ اختیار اور اصولِ انصاف کی پابندی ضروری ہے۔ پنجاب لینڈ ریونیو ایکٹ 1967 کی دفعہ 123 کے تحت دو ڈویژنوں کے درمیان حدود کے تنازعے کو حل کرنے اور کمیٹی تشکیل دینے کا اختیار سینئر ممبر بورڈ آف ریونیو پنجاب کو حاصل ہے، جبکہ حد بندی کی رپورٹ بھی ان کے غور اور حتمی احکامات کے تابع ہوگی۔
چنانچہ بورڈ آف ریونیو نے ایڈیشنل کمشنر ریونیو بہاولپور کا حکم اور متنازعہ حد بندی کے احکامات منسوخ کرتے ہوئے نظرثانی کی درخواست منظور کر لی۔
اہم قانونی اصول: دریائی کٹاؤ کی وجہ سے دو ڈویژنوں کے درمیان زمین کی حدود کے نشانات مٹ جانے پر حد بندی کا معاملہ متعلقہ قانونی اتھارٹی کے ذریعے ہی حل کیا جائے گا؛ مقامی ریونیو افسران اپنے اختیار سے تجاوز کرکے ایسی کارروائی نہیں کر سکتے۔
Must read the judgement.
2026 CLC 1498
[Board of Revenue, Punjab]
Before Rashad Ahmad Khan, Member (Judicial-VIII)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF through Special Power of Attorney and another --Petitioners
Versus
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER BAHAWALPUR (REV.) and others --Respondents
R.O.Rs. Nos. 687 and 821 of 2023, decided on 19th November, 2024.
(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
Art. 129(g)---Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Ss. 5 & 123--Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968, R. 67-A(1)(a-g)--Delineation of boundaries between two divisions---Riverine area-Boundar dary marks having been eroded/disappeared due to river action---Authority competent to determine boundary dispute-Scope Additional Deputy Commissioner (Reve Revenue), Okara, acting on an Mauza of District Baha tituted a committee for demarcation of land situated in a Mauza of District Okara (within his jurisdiction) and a ahawalnagar (outs utside an application, constituted a committee for demarcation of land situated in a Mauz his jurisdiction); similarly, Additional De Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Bahawalnagar, on Mauza of District Bahawalnagar (within his jurisdiction) and Mauza of District Okara (outside his jurisdiction)---Validity-Both officers acted beyond the territorial jurisdiction vested in them by law-No evidence was available on record to show that the orders constituting the demarcation committees had been issued in compliance with, or with the explicit permission of, the Board of Revenue, Punjab---Consequently, such orders were illegal, unlawful and devoid of legal effect, and all acts performed pursuant thereto lacked legitimacy--Record precise nature of the dispute, proof of ownership from Register Haqdaran and factual and legal grounds to substantiate the request, revealed that the very application seeking demarcation lacked essential particulars, including names and details of the applicants, which particulars were mandatory under R.67-A(1)(a-g) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968-Such omissions were not mere procedural irregularities, but went to the foundation of the legal validity of the proceedings and contravened mandatory regularity of official acts, was untenable in view of evident procedural breaches and statutory violations-Under Art. 129(g), Courts requirements of law--Respondents reliance on Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, which permitted presumption of there was substantial evidence of irregularity or illegality-However, acts beyond jurisdiction and absence of the petitioners during could presume that official and judicial acts had been regularly performed in accordance with prescribed procedure and law, unless demarcation proceedings sufficiently rebutted such presumption-Existence of concurrent findings by subordinate fora did not preclude intervention the Board of Revenue where clear evidence of procedural impropriety, miscarriage of justice and non-compliance with mandatory legal provisions was present-Fora below ignored relevant provisions of law-Order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Bahawalpur, was non-speaking and dismissed the revision petition without analysing the petitioner's judicial intervention in the demarcation process to address procedural substantive injustice-Member-Judicial, Board of arguments, assigning reasons, or applying judicial mind---Petitioner's grievance, therefore, was substantiated and warranted Revenue, set aside the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Bahawalpur División, along with the boundary marks had been eroded/disappeared due to river action; such boundary dispute between two divisions was to be resolved impugned demarcation orders, observing that the matter pertained to delineation of boundaries between two divisions where under 5.123 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, and authority to constitute a committee for resolving boundary disputes between divisions exclusively vested in the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, while the resulting demarcation report would be subject to his consideration and final orders---Revision petition was allowed accordingly.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
Act O. V. R. 20-Punjab Land Revenue Ad boundaries tw between two divisi natural justic natural justice were grossly violated d rossly violated dur neither served with proper notices hor form the petitionersavet the petiti inform the petitioners, yet restrain them in their houses to determination of boundary betwee petitioner and alleged use of poll co (XVII of 1967), S. 123-Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968, R. 67-A-Delineation procedure-Violation of natural justice-Effect--Principles of hervice/summoning proced the petitioner and twenty-five affected persons were demarcation process as the petitioner and twenty-five affected persons were ded opportunity of hearted been med and procedure had been adopted to they never receive ed the notice ices and that police force was used to Mauzas of constituted grave denial of due process rendered the proceedings doubtful and unfair and such lack of procedural fairness Division, along with the impugned der oceedings. exercise and, therefore, it was ensure presence ubtful and unfail uring such proceedings--Absence of the nal Commissioner (Revenue) Bahawalpur Division divisions where homemarks had been eroded disappeared due to impugned order passed by the matter pertaine ned to delineations between two divisions was to be resolved under $. 123 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Such boundary dispute between two divisions was to be resolved under diviso thunab vested Reven Sect Memberd Member Board Boston of ofetion Revenue, was Punjab, allowed while accordinglysulting the resulting demarcatic rcation report would be subject to his consideration and final river action pe
(c) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)---
Ss. 5 & 123-Punjab Land Reven Revenue Rules, 1968, R. 67-A(1)(a-g)---Riverine area-Boundary marks having been eroded/disappeared due to river action-Delineation of boundaries--Use of Global Positioning System (GPS) technologyas Certification of equipment and surveyor-Propriety-Use of GPS technology for boundary demarcation, though innovative, unsupported by required certifications for both the equipment and the GPS surveyor from a recognized Government organization or institution in relation to the demarcation conducted on 25.10.2022--GPS systems/devices and expertise of GPS technical surveyors could be employed only if the surveyor possessed requisite qualifications, certifications and relevant work experience with institutions such as SUPARCO (Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission), Urban Unit of the Planning and Development Board, Punjab, or other relevant organizations, so as to ensure reliability and accuracy of the demarcation process--Member-Judicial, Board of Revenue, set aside the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Bahawalpur Division, along with the impugned demarcation orders, observing that the matter pertained to delineation of boundaries between two divisions where boundary marks had been eroded/disappeared due to river action; such boundary dispute between two divisions was to be resolved under 8.123 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, and authority to constitute a committee for resolving boundary disputes between divisions exclusively vested in the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, while the resulting demarcation report would be subject to his consideration and final orders---Revision petition was allowed accordingly.
Muhammad Tayyab Watto for Petitioners.