CH. NAEEM MASOOD, J.--The brief facts of this writ petition are that Asad Ullah Khan respondent No,4 submitted an application to the Collector on 19-3-1995 that Chak No,lOl/ML, Tehsil Kahroor had two sanctioned posts of Lumberdar and only one Lumberdar i.e, petitioner No,l was working as such through petitioner No,2 in the capacity of Sarbrah Lumberdar. On this, the matter was processed by the revenue authorities and consequently the District Collector vide his order dated 29-8-1995 allowed the filling of post of Second Lumberdar and sent down the file to the Assistant Commissioner of Tehsil Kahroor.
2. Petitioner No,2 i.e, the Sarbrah Lumberdar felt aggrieved of this order and submitted review petition submitting thereid that the sanction of the second post needed the approval of the Commissioner under the law and rules. This application was again processed and the learned Collector reviewed his earlier order dated 29-8-1995 vide his order dated 8-1-1996. Respondent No,4 filed an appeal before the Commissioner against the order dated 8-1-1996 contending that in the circumstances of the case, the creation of a second Lumberdari was a must and, therefore, respondent No,4 be appointed against the additionally created Lumberdari. This appeal was dismissed by the leamed Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan vide his order dated 9-4-1997 with the observation that there is only one post of Lumberdari against which petitioner No, 1 is acting as a Lumberdar through petitioner No,2 as a Sarbrah Lumbrdar, therefore, there was no justification for interfering with the order of the Collector. Respondent No,4 Bled a revision petition before the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore/ respondent No,l, who vide his order dated 2-8-1999 remanded the case to the Collector for fresh proceedings by making the following observations: "I have given my careful thought to the arguments advanced on both sides. The factual position is that Muhammad Latif is admittedly employed in Zamindara College Gujrat and has been an absentee landlord for the last many years. It is a settled law that the absentee land-lord cannot be appointed as Lumberdar. The institution of Sarbarah lamberdar was not meant to serve as a proxy feu absentee land-lord.
' In view of the above position, it is my considered opinion that the impugned orders suffer from legal infirmity. I set aside the impugned orders and remand the case to the DC/Collector to take fresh proceedings for the appointment of a Lamberdar to law and rales."
' The learned counsel of the petitioners contends that the respondent No:l had gone beyond the prameters of his jurisdiction, as the case of eligibility or otherwise, of petitioner No, 1 was not before him nor he could make any observation about that.
' Learned counsel of respondent No,4 supports the impugned order. The learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has also submitted to uphold the order of respondent No,l.
I have considered the arguments advanced from all corners and have perused the record. It appears that the learned Senior Member, Board of Revenue/respondent No,l has traversed beyond his jurisdictional parameters.
' Rule 18 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 contains as many as 13 grounds for dismissing a headman and none of these grounds were agitated before the learned Senior Member Board of Revenue, Secondly, the matter of the eligibility, appointment, dismissal of petitioner No,l and his action through Sarbrah Lumberdar was not an issue before the revenue authorities. Thirdly show- cause notice as envisaged under Rule 18(3) ibid was not issued to the petitioners by the ' Revenue Authorities cmi any allegation.
6. Undoubtedly respondent No,4 had no such case before him regarding the ineligibility of the petitioners to hold the office of Lumberdar. The matter was regarding the second post of Lumberdari, which was being claimed by respondent No,4 thus, respondent No,l went beyond the lis, which was before him.
7. The learned Collector and the Commissioner had passed valid orders and learned respondent No,l had not jurisdiction to upset the same. It has been held by the Hon'ble apex Court in 2007 SCM R 1965 Mehr Ali v. Noor Muhammad and others as follows:- "Orders of both the forums were based on correct appreciation of facts and law and there was no misreading or non-reading of material or misconstruction of law-Board of Revenue, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, was not justified to disturb concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below."
8. Besides the Hon'ble apex Court in another case reported in 2007 SCM R 112 Naik Muhammad v.
Mazhar Ali and others has held as follows:- "Any error on the part of Board of Revenue in understanding the law, in applying it or in laying down the law was to be corrected in constitutional jurisdiction by the High Court."
9. I am fortified by die above judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order dated 2-8-1999 and the order dated 12-9-2000 passed on review petition by the learned Senior Member Board of Revenue, Punjab/respondent No, 1.
10. In sequel thereof the writ petition is accepted leaving the parties to bear their own costs.