MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER BAHAWALPUR (REV.)

ORDER

RASHAD AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-VIII).--- These revision petitions has been filed under Section 164 of the Land Revense Act, 1967, challenging the impugned order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Bahawalpur Division, which upheld the demarcation done by joint team of district Okara and District Bahawalnagar on 25.10.2022.

2.The brief facts of the case reveal that Rashid Ahmad, son of Ahmad Baksh, a resident of Mauza Dona Jeevan Sarhu, Tehsil Minchinabad, District Bahawalnagar, submitted an application seeking the demarcation of land situated at the boundary of Mauza Barekay , Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara, and Mauza Dona Jeevan Sarhu , Tehsil Minchinabad, District Bahawalnagar, which lies within a riverine area adjacent to the River Sutlej. In response, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Bahawalnagar constituted a Demarcation Committee on 14.09.2022 for this propose, while a similar committee was formed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Okara, on 17.09.2022 also upon the application of Rashid Ahmad. Subsequently, a joint committee comprising revenue staff and law enforcement personnel from both districts carried out the demarcation on 25.10.2022. The petitioner alleges that the entire demarcation process was conducted in violation of the law, without providing proper participation or representation to the affected parties, thereby breaching the principles of natural justice. Dissatisfied with the process and its outcome, the petitioner appealed against the demarcation before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Bahawalpur, who dismissed the petition on 01.03.2023. The petitioner further conteads that the initiation of action under Rule 67-A of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968, was undertaken without adherence to the mandatory procedural requirements. Moreover, the petitioner asserts that the impugned orders, issued by the Assistant Commissioners of Dipalpur and Minchinabad, and subsequently upheld by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Bahawalpur, are factually baseless, procedurally defective, and in direct contravention of established legal principles and the fundamental right to a fair hearing. Consequently, the petitioner seeks the setting aside of the impugned orders and a comprehensive reassessment of the entire boundary demarcation process, citing significant procedural and substantive irregularities, forming the basis of the present revision petition.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking to implead Sarfraz Ahmad son of Ahmad Din and others as necessary parties, arguing that the impugned order significantly affects 25 individuals who were not originally included in the proceedings. He contended that under Order I Rules 1 and 10 of the C.P.C., even a single aggrieved individual has the locus standi to initiate a claim when collective rights are involved, and parties can be added at any stage to ensure justice. The counsel maintained that the application was necessitated solely by the respondent's objections and did not require a specific judicial determination at this revisional stage, where limitations concerning time constraints are inapplicable. He asserted that courts possess inherent jurisdiction to implead necessary parties to prevent multiplicity of litigation and achieve holistic adjudication, citing authoritative judgments affirming that parties may be joined at any stage without causing prejudice. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent initially argued that the application was a mere tactic to delay the proceedings and adding new parties at this juncture would unnecessarily protract the litigation. However, upon further deliberation and in the interest of justice, the respondent's counsel conceded that he would not oppose the application, provided that the petitioner's counsel agreed to present arguments on the main case on the same day, thereby preventing any undue delay. The petitioner's counsel acceded to this condition. After considering arguments from both sides, and noting the mutual agreement to proceed without delay, the application under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code was accordingly allowed, underscoring that including all affected parties is essential to uphold the principles of natural justice and ensure a fair adjudication of the matter.

4.Turning to procedural aspects, the counsel argued that the demarcation application was improperly addressed to the Assistant Commissioner rather than to the concerned Tehsildar concerned, depriving them one right of appeal. He observed that the respondents remained conspicuously silent after their first application until 25.10.2022 when the demarcation was conducted. He further alleged that the respondents, who include influential individuals from the Sarhu Wattoo clan, leveraged their influence against the petitioners, members of the Bareka Wattoo clan, to manipulate the proceedings. Recounting an incident on 19.10.2022, he highlighted the respondents' alleged attempt to forcibly occupy the disputed land with the assistance of armed individuals, resulting in a murder of a woman and several injuries, and the lodging of an FIR at Haveli Lakha Police Station in Depalpur. He contended that the respondents subsequently manipulated jurisdictional boundaries to shift the investigation to McLeod Ganj Police Station in Bahawalnagar, thereby influencing the outcome in their favor.

5.Proceeding to the substantive matters, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the legal foundation for initiating the demarcation must be meticulously scrutinized under the Land Revenue Act, 1967, and Rule 67-A of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968. He pointed out glaring deficiencies in the demarcation application, which failed to meet mandatory statutory requirements. Essential details such as the applicant's parentage, precise location of land, address, specific reasons for seeking the demarcation, and proof of ownership from the Register Haqdaran were conspicuously absent. He contended that such omissions render the application legally untenable and procedurally deficient, thereby undermining the very basis upon which the demarcation proceedings were initiated.

6.To substantiate his argument, the counsel illustrated that Rashid Ahmad, the applicant, failed to specify his own landholding or provide adequate details regarding other affected landowners. The application vaguely referred to "the applicant and others" without identifying the parties or delineating the extent of their interests. He further submitted that the demarcation decision adversely affected 25 individuals who were never made parties to the proceedings. Initiating action under Rule 67-A of The Land Revenue Rules, 1968 without adhering to these mandatory procedural requirements, he asserted, constitutes a significant legal irregularity. He emphasized that demarcation can only be conducted by a duly authorized Revenue Officer, and the application lacked vital information regarding the land's occupancy, ownership, and duration of occupation. Such omissions, he argued, violated principles of natural justice by depriving affected parties of an opportunity to be heard.

7.The counsel further criticized the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Bahawalpur's decision for failing to provide an opportunity for the petitioners and the 25 affected individuals to present their case. He argued that their omission from the attendance chart constituted a grave violation of natural justice principles. Additionally, he highlighted procedural lapses in the issuance of notices, which failed to comply with Order V Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Code. Regarding the demarcation process, the counsel vehemently opposed the use of GPS technology, asserting that no legal provision under the Land Revenue Act, 1967, or the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, authorizes its application in revenue matters. He questioned the legal qualifications of those who conducted the GPS-based measurements and the absence of government authorization for this method. Erecting new Boundary Marks based on unverified GPS data, particularly in disputes involving multiple jurisdictions, he argued, is arbitrary and lacks legal sanctity particularly the one conducting it lacks requisite official certification and approval of the competent authority to use such technology.

8.Concluding his arguments, the counsel emphasized that the entire demarcation process was vitiated by procedural irregularities, statutory violations, and gross infringements of the petitioners' rights. He contended that the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) failed to consider the petitioners' arguments or provide a reasoned order addressing the substantive issues raised. He described the demarcation proceedings as lacking transparency, adherence to legal norms, and impartiality. The actions of the respondents, he alleged, were calculated attempts to manipulate legal processes and falsify land records for their personal benefit and requested for the acceptance of petition and setting aside the impugned orders.

9.The learned counsel for the respondents, addressing the legal framework, elucidated that the demarcation was conducted under Section 117 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, and Rule 67-A of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968, which empower revenue officers to initiate demarcation proceedings either upon application or Suo motu. The respondent submitted an application asserting ownership of land in Minchinabad with indeterminate boundaries, clarifying that neither party possesses ownership interest in the other's Mauza. The Assistant Commissioner of Minchinabad initiated correspondence with the Deputy Commissioner of Bahawalnagar, who engaged his counterpart in Okara, resulting in a joint team of revenue officers competent to effectuate the district boundary demarcation. The counsel clearly said that, pursuant to Rule 67(3)(b) of Land Revenue Rules, 1968, permission from the Board of Revenue is not required for such demarcations, as district revenue officers have delegated powers to discharge these functions . He asserted that letter of Additional Deputy Commissioner (Bahawalnagar) dated 18.10.2022 addressed to Additional Deputy Commissioner (Okara) intimating about the demarcation proceedings on 25.10.2022 was sufficient to decide the boundaries of two districts.

10.Concerning the methodology, the counsel defended the utilization of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology as a legitimate and reliable metric modality. He argued that traditional implements are antiquated and susceptible to inaccuracies, whereas GPS technology affords precise measurements and is legally permissible. Refuting any contention impugning the legality of GPS usage, he asserted the absence of any statutory prohibition against its application in demarcation proceedings. Concluding his arguments, he reiterated the maxim "That which is not prohibited is permissible ."

11.With regard to notices to the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that all notices were served to the petitioners, but they failed to appear for demarcation proceedings. That the petitioner was fully aware of the demarcation proceedings, as evidenced by their recurrent procurement of stay orders from civil courts intended to impede the lawful demarcation process. By presenting these stay orders, the petitioner caused unwarranted delays, culminating in the suspension of the demarcation due to their interference. The counsel emphasized that copies of these judicial erders were duly exhibited, and on three occasions, the proceedings were adjourned as a direct consequence of the petitioner's actions, demonstrating their comprehensive awareness of the demarcation activities.

12.The counsel underscored that revenue officers from both tehsils were present at the demarcation site, including Assistant Commissioners, Tehsildars, Girdawars, and Patwaris of Minchinabad and Dipalpur, with law enforcement officials in attendance to ensure public order. The demarcation aimed to precisely delineate the boundaries of both Mauzas, and the extensive undertaking spanned the entire day, dispelling any notion of perfunctory execution. The counsel highlighted that the petitioner's habitual invocation of stay orders led to protracted deferrals, and the report regarding earlier demarcation proceedings records the presence of both parties, corroborating the petitioner's awareness of the proceedings.

13.The counsel highlighted that under Section 172(2)(i) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, civil courts lack jurisdiction over demarcation matters. Despite this, the petitioner procured multiple stay orders from civil courts and, even upon their vacatur or dismissal, persisted in instituting successive suits. Presently, a civil suit titled " Muhammad Yar v. Province of Punjab" is pending before the Civil Judge, Okara, with the petitioner's interim relief vacated. He argued that this litigious trajectory evinces the petitioner's deliberate intent to thwart the lawful demarcation process. Addressing the petitioner's locus standi, the counsel detailed that their proprietary claims are minimal and insufficient to challenge the demarcation. Specifically, the petitioners collectively own only 17 acres yet are unlawfully occupying an expanse of 458 acres belonging to the respondent, with certain individuals possessing between 15 to 20 acres without lawful entitlement. He affirmed his preparedness to provide Gardawari records to substantiate these assertions, arguing that non-owners lack the requisite standing to impogn the demarcation, particularly when their Mauza does not adjoin the respondent's Mouza.

14.He further contended that the petitioners' reliance upon historical records dating back 125 years is legally untenable, as current law mandates reliance upon the most recent Jamabandi for demarcation purposes. Under Rule 67-A (2) of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968, petitioners must include latest entries from the Register Haqdaran. The counsel submitted that the petitioners' insistence upon historical records and their claims of being affected parties lack legal substantiation. He asserted that concurrent findings by two subordinate forums limit the scope for appellate or revisional interference, and the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any patent illegality or procedural impropriety, emphasizing that the demarcation process was conducted without illegality. He referenced Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which stipulates that a decree or order cannot be reversed due to non-material irregularities. Additionally, he noted that the Revenue officer under Rule 6 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968 is guided generally by the principles laid down in Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Moreover, under Article 129(g), courts are allowed to presume that all official and judicial acts have been properly and regularly performed according to the prescribed procedures and laws. The counsel respectfully requested the court to dismiss the petition, asserting that it is devoid of legal merit, lacks standing, and that the demarcation was effectuated in strict conformity with statutory mandates and procedural proprieties.

15.During the proceedings before Member Judicial VII, BOR Punjab, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they intend to conduct the demarcation of boundary to the extent of their Mauza Barekay, Tehsil Dipalpur, District Okara. They were directed to submit the application before the concerned Assistant Commissioner and submit copy of the application in the court. The court directed the Assistant Commissioner, Dipalpur to complete the demarcation to the extent of Mauza Barekay, Tehsil Dipalpur, District Okara. The Revenue Officer Halqa submitted reports dated 24.01.2024 and report dated 14.06.2024. The report concluded that, according to the Shujra Parcha , the boundary of Mauza Barekay begins to the north of Khasra No. 98/1, extending towards Mauza Sulemanki. It further noted that there is no marking stone or boundary present between the areas of Mauza Barekay and Mauza Sulemanki to the north. The second report corroborated this observation, stating that the marking stones were not present (due to the action of the river) as reflected in the Shujra Parcha.

16.After careful perusal of record and hearing the arguments of both learned counsels, the court has concluded the following factual and legal reasoning . The settlement of boundary disputes between districts is governed by the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, and the rules framed thereunder. Section 5 of the Act entrusts the Board of Revenue with overarching superintendence and control over all revenue officers and courts, empowering it to issue directives for resolving disputes, including boundary disputes. While Section 122 authorizes the Collector to determine boundaries within estates, disputes that extent across district boundaries necessitate the involvement of higher authorities, such as the Commissioner or the Board of Revenue, to ensure fairness and compliance with legal norms. Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968, prescribes procedural requirements for demarcation, emphasizing the referral of complex matters to the Commissioner or the Board of Revenue. The Section 123 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 deals with powers to fix boundaries between riverine estates and Board of Revenue may order a permanent boundary line to be fixed between any such estates or such portions thereof as are liable to river action.

17.District Collectors have jurisdiction to address boundary disputes within their respective districts but lack anthority over inter-district disputes . As stipulated in Section 5, the Board of Revenue's supervisory authority is indispensable, requiring its explicit approval or direction for inter-district demarcation or dispute resolution. Legal precedents underscore the necessity of the Board's involvement in inter-district boundary disputes to ensure neutrality, legal compliance, and uniformity of procedure. Actions undertaken by District Collectors to resolve such disputes without prior authorization from the Board of Revenue exceed their jurisdiction and are legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the Board of Revenue, as the apex authority in revenue matters, remains the appropriate forum for resolving inter-district boundary disputes in accordance with the law. Moreover, the dispute under question is not simply a boundary dispute between two districts, it's a boundary dispute between two divisions namely Sahiwal Division and Bahawalpur Division .

18.The demarcation proceedings of October 25, 2022, relied on the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar, dated October 18, 2022. The report mentions that the Revenue Department and Police Department jointly decided to conduct the demarcation using satellite technology and subsequently erected new boundary markers. However, the order of the proceedings fails to provide any justification for conducting a unilateral demarcation, neglects to explain how the petitioners were notified, and does not clarify the basis for proceeding ex parte. The demarcation report lacked details about efforts to ensure participation and as to why the order was being issued ex parte. The report also vaguely refers to 25 illegal occupants without providing specific details about the alleged illegal occupation. There is no explanation as to why so much police force was called for assistance if the proceedings were meant to be ex parte, and as to why they even signed the demarcation proceedings. The presence of police to handle any untoward situation may be reasonable, but engaging them in the core proceedings, and making them signatory to the demarcation is not provided in the law . The letter dated 8.10.2022 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Bahawalnagar was only meant for presence of police for peaceful demarcation, not for Additionally, the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar, did not use his authority appropriately by involving police in a core decision of demarcation, rendering the process one-sided and legally unsustainable. This lack of transparency undermines the proceedings' legal sanctity.

19.A meticulous examination of the record reveals that on September 17, 2022, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue). Okara, acting on an application filed by Rashid Ahmad, constituted a committee for the demarcation of land located in Mauza Barekay, Tehsil Dipalpur, District Okara (within his jurisdiction), and Mauza Dona Jeewan Sarhu, Tehsil Minchinabad, District Bahunwalnagar (outside his jurisdiction). Similarly, on September 14, 2022, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Bahawalnagar, on the application filed by Rashid Ahmad, constituted a committee for the demarcation of land situated in Mauza Dona Jeewan Sarhu, Tehsil Minchinabad, District Bahawalnagar (within his jurisdiction), and Mauza Barekay, Tehsil Dipalpur, District Okara (outside his jurisdiction) . Both officers acted beyond the territorial jurisdiction vested in them by law. There is no evidence on record indicating that the orders for the constitution of demarcation committees were issued in compliance with or with the explicit permission of the Board of Revenue, Punjab . Consequently, their actions are illegal, unlawful, and devoid of any legal force. All acts performed pursuant to these orders, lack legitimacy under the law.

20.The significant objections were raised to the demarcation proceedings conducted on 25.10.2022, identifying procedural and legal deficiencies under the Land Revenue Act, 1967, and the Land Revenue Rules, 1968. At the time of application for demarcation, it lacked essential particulars , including the names and details of the applicants, the precise nature of the dispute, and proof of ownership from the Register Haqdaran, and factual and legal grounds to substantiate the request which is mandatory under Rule 67-A (1) (a-g) of Land Revenue Rules, 1968 . Such omissions are not merely procedural irregularities, they undermine the very foundation of the legal validity of the proceedings. These deficiencies contravene the mandatory requirements stipulated by law.

21.The respondent's reliance on Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 , which presumes the regularity of official acts, is untenable in light of the evident procedural breaches and statutory violations. Under Article 129(g), courts are allowed to presume that all official and judicial acts have been properly and regularly performed according to the prescribed procedures and laws. This means that unless there is substantial evidence indicating irregularity or illegality, the court will accept that officials acted within their authority and followed the necessary legal protocols. However, procedural breaches as the acts beyond jurisdiction and absence of petitioners sufficiently rebut this presumption. The argument that the petitioner's proprietary claims are minimal does not hold merit, as ownership rights, irrespective of their extent, are entitled to full legal protection and procedural fairness . The existence of concurrent findings by subordinate forums does not preclude this court from intervening, especially when clear evidence of procedural impropriety, miscarriage of justice, and non-compliance with mandatory legal provisions is present. Both forums ignored the provisions of law. The order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Bahawalpur is a non-speaking order and utterly failed to analyse the arguments of the petitioner with reasoning, and without application of judicial mind dismissed the petition. The petitioner's grievances are therefore substantiated and warrant judicial intervention to address the procedural and substantive injustices arising from the demarcation process.

22.The petitioner contended that the principles of natural justice were grossly violated during the demarcation process as the petitioner and 25 affected individuals were not served with proper notices, not were they given an opportunity to present their case. Moreover, the failure to fully comply with Order V rule 20 of the Civil procedure Code in serving notices further invalidates the proceedings. Record shows that notices were issued and procedure was adopted to inform the petitioners, yet the petitioner in the petition alleged that they never received the notices and police force was used to restrain them in their houses to conduct unilateral demarcation. Without delving into the merits of the demarcation proceedings, it is noted that determining the boundary between two riverine Mauzas of two districts was a significant task. Therefore, it was imperative for the revenue administration to ensure the petitioners' presence during the demarcation proceedings . Petitioner's absence and alleged use of police force renders the proceedings doubtful and unfair. This lack of procedural fairness constitutes a grave denial of due process.

23.The use of GPS technology for boundary demarcation, though innovative, is unsupported by the required certifications for both the equipment and the GPS surveyor from a recognized government organization or institution for the demarcation conducted on 25.10.2022. GPS systems and devices, along with the expertise of GPS technical surveyors, may be employed only if the surveyor possesses the requisite qualifications, certifications, and relevant work experience with institutions such as SUPARCO (Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission), the Urban Unit of the Planning and Development Board Punjab, or other relevant organizations. This ensures the reliability and accuracy of the demarcation process.

24.In light of the foregoing reasoning, the revision petition is hereby ACCEPTED , and the impugned order dated 01.03.2023 issued by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Bahawalpur Division, along with the demarcation order dated 25.10.2022, is set aside, with the observation that the matter pertains to the delineation of boundaries between two divisions, where boundary marks have been eroded or disappeared due to river action. Such a boundary dispute between two divisions is to be resolved under Section 123 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. Therefore, in view of the broader framework of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, and the Land Revenue Rules, 1968, the authority to constitute a committee to resolve boundary disputes between divisions exclusively vests in the Learned Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, who may exercise this authority, with the resulting demarcation report being subject to his consideration and final orders. File be consigned to record room after its due completion and compilation.

MQ/16/Rev Revision allowed.