'ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I).--- The above captioned revision petition has been filed against the order, dated A 1-2-2007 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar, whereby he accepted the review petition of present respondent.
2. Brief facts of the case have already been discussed in the impugned order. There is no need to repeat again here.
3. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent is defaulter of the Government dues as per revenue field staff report. Respondent is not of good behaviour and public has refused to pay him revenue. He is also involved in criminal cases and in possession of public graveyards' land. He further stated that section 163 of the Land Revenue Act, have not been attracted in the present case. No immaterial irregularity has been committed by Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar. He prayed to accept the revision petition and set aside the impugned order.
4. The counsel for the respondent argued that Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar while accepting the review petition has passed a legal speaking judicial order and there is no illegality or irregularity having been committed by them. He further stated that respondent was working as temporary Lambardar and there was not a single complaint against the respondent. He prayed to dismiss the revision petition and maintained the impugned order.
5. Heard. Record perused. The Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar while passing order did not give any cogent reason to accept the claim of the petitioner. The District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar has also passed a non-speaking order in favour of the petitioner. In view of this I set aside the impugned orders of the lower Courts and remand case back to District Officer (Revenue)
Bhakkar, who should pass the detail order afresh after listening the parties.