' The present revision petition has been filed under section 164 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, against the order passed by the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, dated 24- 9-1996, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of DC/Collector, Rahimyar Khan, dated 5-4-1993.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the DC/Collector, Rahimyar Khan not processed the case for appointment of a Lambardar for Chak No,84-A, Tehsil Liaqatpur and vide order, dated 5-4-1993 appointed Khair Din (present respondent) as permanent Lambardar of the said Chak. The present petitioner filed an appeal against the above order before the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, who vide order, dated 27-6-1994 accepted the same and remanded the case to D.C./Collector to determine the merits of the candidate in terms of their holdings, influence, tribal strength, education, service to the community and then pass final order. The present respondent (Khair Din) challenged this order before the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab who vide order, dated 13-8-1995 accepted the revision petition with the observations that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to remand the case and the case was remanded to the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, for fresh decision in accordance with law. The Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, after hearing parties and having gone through the relevant record dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order, dated 24-9-1996. Hence, the present revision petition.
' I have heard the learned counsel of both the sides in detail
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner represents the 2/3rd of the community. He stated that the petitioner owns more land and is ex-councillor. He is 53/55 years of age whereas respondent is 85 years of age. He also stated the certificate of appreciation from Director-General Rural Development Department has been given to the petitioner.
5. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the respondent remained temporary Lambardar for a period of 36 years and there are concurrent findings in favour of the respondent. He stated that the respondent had not been declared as defaulter. His age is about 75 years. He owns 120 Kanals of land in the same revenue estate.
6. I have given my careful thought to the arguments advanced by both sides in detail and examined the record of the case. Perusal of the impugned order shows that all such contentions which have now been raised have already been discussed by the learned Commissioner in the impugned order. The concurrent findings are in favour of the respondent. I seen no reason to interfere with the impugned order and uphold the same. The present revision petition being devoid of force is hereby dismissed.