Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 1113 2019 SLD 1113 2019 YLR 919
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 286-A of 2016, decision & hearing Dated: 21-09-2017.
SYED ARSHAD ALI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Ayaz Khan
Respondent(s) by: Bashir Ahmed Chaudhry

SAEED ALIAS SAIDO AND 6 OTHERS

VS

ABDULLAH

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 8

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXVI

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 8---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXVI---High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders Vol. I, Chap. 1, Part M (i)---Suit for possession of immovable property---Demarcation---Requirements---Plaintiff on the basis of demarcation report prepared by Circle Girdawar filed suit for possession which was decreed concurrently---Contention of defendants was that no notice was issued to them in the demarcation proceedings---Validity---Parties were not co-owners in the suit property---No Commission was appointed by the Trial Court for re-demarcation of suit land---Only evidence with regard to alleged encroachment upon the property of plaintiff was the demarcation report of Circle Girdawar---Said report was ambiguous and vague with regard to spot inspection and establishment of Khasra---No site plan/sketch of measurement/spot inspection was prepared by the Girdawar while making demarcation of suit land---Nothing was on record whether Girdawar had followed the rules of demarcation as provided in the High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders---Revenue officer was bound to first trace some permanent point/structure wherefrom he was to undertake the measurement by establishing each Khasra number intervening the disputed Khasra number keeping in view the description and measurement of each arm of Khasra number as provided in Shajra Kishtwar---Entire measurement should be reflected in separately prepared sketch wherein the encroached property should be separately marked enabling the Court to render definite opinion on encroachment if any made by the defendants---Demarcation report in the present case was not worth reliance as it did not disclose the real controversy between the parties---Nothing was on record to decide the issue of encroachment---Impugned s and decrees were based on no/incorrect evidence---Matter could not be left unattended due to deficient demarcation report---Nobody should suffer for negligence and act of public servant---If statutory functionary had failed to perform his duties in accordance with law then plaintiff could not be made to suffer for the said omission/negligence when Court had power to appoint commission…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492