' Upon completion of allotment and transfer of land in Chak No.128/E, Tehsil Burewala District, Vehari, proceedings were commenced for appointment of a permanent Lambardar. Muhammad Iqbal, father and grandfather of respondents Nos.2 and 3 respectively was appointed as Lambardar by the District Collector, Vehari on 12-4-1995. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner on 8-6-1999. His revision however, was allowed by learned Member Board of Revenue on 26-6-2001 who remanded the case to the Collector. After conducting the requisite proceedings the Collector appointed the petitioner as Lambardar vide order dated 29-12-2001. Against this order Muhammad Iqbal filed an appeal which was dismissed by the EDO(R), Sahiwal on 9-10-2003. Said Muhammad Iqbal died. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 filed two revision petitions in the Board of Revenue, Punjab. Vide order dated 24-7-2004, respondent No.1 allowed the said revision petitions and set aside the order of appointment and remanded the case for fresh proceedings for appointment of Lambardar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondents Nos.2 and 3 had no locus standi to file the said revision petitions. Further contends that even if suo motu action was to be taken, learned Member Board of Revenue ought to have taken note of the order already passed by his predecessor on 22-6-2001 and if some inquiry of residence was necessary he could have himself ordered the same and decide the matter accordingly. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 while conceding that his clients had no locus standi insists that the impugned order is lawful and valid.
3. So far as the said first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same is duly supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Ghulam Abbas v. Member Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore and 5 others (1992 SCM R 1977). Admittedly the said respondents had withdrawn their applications at the relevant time and had gone out of arena and as such had no locus standi to file the said revision petitions.
4. Now so far as the matter of suo motu action is concerned, respondent No.1 has observed that a murder case is pending against the petitioner. While giving the said observation, respondent No.1 has very conveniently failed to take note of the observation of Dr. Shehzad Qaiser, Member Judicial-I, in order dated 22-6-2001 in ROR No.1631/99 (Anex-D). Learned Member has very correctly observed that pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner do not prove that he is a criminal unless he is convicted by a Court of law. The other ground was that whether the petitioner was a resident of the Chak or village. Respondent No.1 has not recorded any finding on this aspect of the matter and has proceeded to set aside the appointment of the petitioner. The impugned order dated 24-7-2004 is without jurisdiction and is a accordingly liable to be set aside.
5. W.P. Accordingly is allowed. The impugned order dated 24-7-2004 passed by the respondent No.1 in ROR Nos.55 of 2004 and 56 of 2004 is set aside. Result would be that the appointment order of petitioner shall remain intact. Respondent No.1, if he so deems proper, may conduct an inquiry himself regarding residence of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order thereafter.
' No. Order as to costs.