CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J. - The instant. Writ petition has been directed against order dated 6.3.2010 passed by the Full Board of Revenue of Punjab who dismissed the second review petition and maintained the order dated 14.12.2009 passed in review petition by Member (Judicial-ll), Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore.
2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the writ petition are that father of the petitioner namely It.
Col. (R) Muhammad Akram Khan was the Lumberdar of Chak No. 118/NB, Tehsil Sillanwali, District Sargodha who died on 24.1.2002. On the death of Lumberdar, the Revenue Officer sent his recommendation to the District Officer (Revenue) for the appointment of new Lumberdar who vide order dated 11.12.2002 appointed the petitioner as Lumberdar. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 5 filed appeal before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Sargodha who vide order dated 4.3.2004 accepted the appeal, set aside the order of District Officer (Revenue), Sargodha and appointed respondent No. 5 as Lumberdar:
3. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore which was accepted on 24.2.2005 by learned Member (Jugicial-ll), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. As a next step, respondent No. 5 filed revenue petition which was allowed on 14.12.2009 and second review petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 6.3.2010 by Full Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. Hence this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel- for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is eligible for the post of Lumberdar on the basis of hierarchy claim as the father of the petitioner was a permanent Lumberdar. The petitioner is well-educated person who owns land in the revenue estate in Chak No. 118/NB, Tehsil Sillanwali, District Sargodha. The petitioner enjoys good reputation who has influence in the area. The order of District Officer (Revenue) was just and legal order, therefore, the writ petition be allowed, the impugned orders be set aside and the order dated 11.12.2002 passed by District Officer (Revenue) as well as by the Board of Revenue, Punjab in R.O.R, be restored.
5. Conversely, learned counsel .For respondent No. 5 has vehemently opposed this writ petition mainly on the ground that the Full Board of Revenue has dismissed the second review petition filed by the petitioner which could not be interfered with in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, In support of his contentions, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has relied on PLD 1966 (West Pakistan) Lahore 53, 1989 SGMR 614 and 1988 SCM R 484 and .Has prayed that the instant writ petition be dismissed.
6. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No. 5.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced from all corners and have also perused the record available on i.e.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the ease mainly on the basis of rule of primogeniture which has already been declared as against the Injunctions of Islam. Perusal of record highlights that-the petitioner has abandoned his residence in Chak No. '118/NB, Sillanwali, District Sargodha and has shifted from the area of his appointment. The perusal of record further reveals that the petitioner has sold his entire land and he is no more land owner in Chak No. 118/NB, Sillanwali, District Sargodha. In addition, because of the absence of the petitioner, the government has been facing difficulties in recovery of land revenues and other government dues. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner were earlier agitated before the lower forums who have passed the orders after considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as perusing the record and evidence and vide order dated 4.3.2004, Executive District Officer (Revenue) passed an exhaustive order in appeal filed by respondent No. 5. Similarly, order dated 14.12.2009 passed by learned Member (Judicial-ll), Board of Revenue is also a well- reasoned order. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a second review petition which was dismissed by the Full Board of Revenue on the ground that the petitioner failed to point out any plausible found to review previous/impugned order. The grounds already decided by the revenue hierarchy against cannot be agitated in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. As a consequence, this writ petition is without any merit, hence dismissed.