This is a review petition against the order dated 31-10-1993 of the then Member (Judicial-1I) Board of Revenue, Punjab.
2. The facts are that Sohna Khan, Lambardar of Chak No. 10/JB, Tehsil Chiniot died and the Collector appointed the respondent as Lambardar, vide order dated 1-4-1989. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, who vide order dated 12-11-1989, dismissed the same. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 31-10-1993, passed by the then learned member, Board of Revenue, Punjab. Hence this petition.
3. After hearing the case the orders dated 31-10-1993 passed by the then Member, Board of Revenue Punjab were withdrawn as they had not been passed on merit.
4. The case was heard in detail on 29-10-1995 and counsel of both parties were allowed to advance arguments in favour of their respective cases.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that Sohna Khan died in 1988. To fill in the office of Lambardar, applications were invited. Finally, the present petitioner and the respondent remained in the field. He argued that Sohna Khan in his life time had appointed the petitioner as Sarbrah Lambardar. He further stated that Falak Sher petitioner had studied up to 10th class while the respondent had studied up to 5th class. He stated that the petitioner and respondent were real brothers. The respondent is older by one and a quarter year. He contended that the case will be decided under Rule 19 of Land Revenue Rules, 1968. He stated that a case of theft of water had been registered against the respondent on 25-7-1994.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent stated that the present case falls under rules of primogeniture. He stated that the respondent was the elder brother. He further stated that being a 'Sarbrah Lambardar' does not give any preferential right for being appointed a Lambardar. He stated that in the case of water theft filed against the respondent, the respondent had been acquitted by the Court on 12-4-1995. He stated that the respondent had been working as Lambardar since 1989 and there had been no complaint against him.
7. I have given my careful thought to the arguments produced on both sides. This review petition will be treated as a revision petition against the orders dated 12-11-1989, because the orders dated 31-10-1993, passed by the then Member, Board of Revenue had been recalled. The factual position is that the respondent is the eldest son of the deceased Lambardar Sohna Khan. Being a 'Sarbrah Lambardar' does not give any preferential right for the appointment of Lambardar. Secondly the case registered against the respondent had been dismissed by the competent Court, and as such it is no disqualification for being appointed as Lambardar. Respondent had been working as Lambardar since 1989 and there was no complaint against him. I, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the District Collector and the Commissioner which are upheld and the revision petition is dismissed.
M.B.A./83/R Review dismissed.