' The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this revision are that the petitioner Said Muhammad brought a complaint the respondent Nazar Muhammad, Lambardar of Chak No, 49/DB, alleging that he was charged excess amount of Rs, 50 for which misconduct the respondent should be removed from the office. The learned A.C./Collector on examination of the complaint and after hearing the parties reached the conclusion that the complaint was without any substance and accordingly rejected it. The petitioner then agitated the matter in appeal which was also dismissed in limine by the learned Commissioner, Bahawalpur, vide orders, dated 2-8-1984, now assailed through this revision,
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in preliminary hearing. In my considered view, the decision of a Collector rejecting a complaint against the conduct of the Lambardar is not appealable. Such decisions are of executive nature and an appeal against such decision cannot result in any consequential relief to the Complainant in regard to the office of Lambardari. On this ground alone I would reject this revision. I do not find it necessary to go into contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal filed before the learned Commissioner was within limitation. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.