RAWALPINDI: The Lahore High Court’s Rawalpindi Bench has dismissed two writ petitions challenging demarcation proceedings in Murree, upholding the forest department’s claim over land that petitioners assert is their ancestral property.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Jawad Hassan ruled that the petitioners had failed to exhaust statutory remedies and had suppressed material facts regarding prior litigation.

At the heart of the controversy lies a demarcation conducted on December 8, 2010, following orders of the Lahore High Court. The demarcation, jointly conducted by the Survey of Pakistan, Revenue Department, Forest Department and WWF, identified the petitioners as encroachers upon Forest Department land.

The petitioners, led by Raja Hafeezur Rehman in the main petition, claimed ownership of land in Ahata Noor Khan, Murree, spanning 846 kanals and 10 marlas, including residential properties.

The court noted that the 2010 demarcation was challenged through a civil suit which was dismissed on June 18, 2014.

The Additional District Judge upheld this dismissal on May 31, 2018. The petitioners then filed Civil Revision No.78 of 2019, which they withdrew on June 27, 2023.

“The concealment of such material proceedings... amounts to suppression of material facts and constitutes a serious attempt to mislead the fora concerned,” observed Justice Hassan.

A subsequent demarcation conducted on February 17, 2023, purportedly on court directions, was set aside by the Assistant Commissioner, Murree on July 18, 2024. This order was upheld by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) and the Member Judicial, Board of Revenue.

The court clarified that its earlier direction did not mandate fresh demarcation but merely required a decision on a pending application through a speaking order.

The court emphasized that Section 172 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 bars civil courts from entertaining matters falling within the exclusive domain of revenue authorities.

“A demarcation conducted by a Revenue Officer is not immune from challenge,” the judgment stated, while noting the statutory remedies available under Sections 161 and 164 of the Act.

However, the petitioners had failed to avail these remedies against the 2010 demarcation, instead pursuing civil litigation.

The connected petition sought directions against removing existing demarcation points or installing new ones based on Google Maps.

The court observed that petitioners in this matter had neither availed statutory remedies under the Act nor approached competent revenue authorities, instead invoking constitutional jurisdiction at the threshold.

“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,” the court held.

Dismissing both petitions, Justice Hassan concluded that the findings of the revenue forums were “in consonance with law, calling for no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.”

The judgement noted that the initial demarcation having attained finality through unchallenged proceedings, the subsequent demarcation report carried “no legal sanctity”.

Published in Dawn, July 3rd, 2026