MUHAMMAD NASEEM CHAUDHRI, J. - One Hashmat Ali, a collateral of Anwar Ali petitioner and the father of Mst. Riaz Anwar respondent No. 1, died and vacated the office of the Lumbardar of Chak No. 37/12-L, Tehsil Chichawatni, District Sahiwal. Hashmat Ali deceased left one issue i.e. Mst. Riaz Anwar respondent No. 1. The post of the Lumbardar was declared as vacant and the applications were invited by the Assistant Commissioner, Chichawatni. Including the petitioner and Mst. Riaz Anwar respondent No. 1, eight persons applied in the matter. The case was processed by the field staff and the name of Anmwaar Ali petitioner is said to have been recommended. It was placed before the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Chichawatni. Since it was the matter pertaining to the office of the ancestral Lumbardar all the candidates who did not fall within the rule of primogeniture were ignored. During ht proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Chichawatni; Mst. Anwar respondent No. 1 is said to have made her statement whereby she withdrew her candidature. At that time she was allegedly identified by Syed Haider Abbas, Advocate and one Muhammad Sharif.-The file was sent to the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Sahiwal who passed the order for the appointment of Anwar Ali petitioner as the Lumbardar. An appeal was preferred by Mst. Riaz Anwar respondent No, 1 and Others before the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan whereby she intimated:, that she had not made the statement about the withdrawal of the candidature. All the appeals were dismissed. Mst. Riaz Anwar filed the revision petition before the learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. Vide order dated 3.4.1995 the learned Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore accepted the revision petition on the ground that the order dated 7.7.1992 passed by the District Collector, Sahiwal is a non-speaking order which was declared as hot maintainable. It was expressed that it was essential for the District Collector to hear the candidates, sift the facts and examine the report of the filed formulation before coming to the conclusion about the suitability of the candidates for appointment as Lumbardar. It was expressed that neither Mst. Riaz Anwar was heard nor veracity of her statement alleged to have been recorded by the Sub-Divisional Collector was ascertained. Her being a daughter of the deceased lumbardar was also referred to. It was held that the order of the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan was lacking the appreciation on the aforesaid facts which was not liable to be maintained. The same was accordingly struck down after the acceptance of the revision petition and the matter was sent to the District Collector, Sahiwal to decide the case afresh after hearing both the parties. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 3.4.1995 Anwar Ali petitioner has filed this writ petition to get the same declared as illegal, void and inoperative on the grounds that the matter was properly disposed of by the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan and that the order of the District Collector, Sahiwal stood merged in his judgment. According to the petitioner Mst. Riaz Anwar withdrew her candidature and could not make the averments afterwards to get herself appointed as the Lumbardar.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record before me. I do not agree with the learned counsel tor Anwar Ali petitioner who canvassed before me that the impugned order dated 3.4.1995 passed by the learned Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore is illegal and without jurisdiction. In this regard I have to express that the competence of the said learned Member was not objected to before him to decide the revision petition and in fact and law no such objection could be raised as the revision petition was maintainable before him1. In the instant matter, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for Mst. Riaz Anwar respondent No. 1, the judgment passed by the District Collector, Sahiwal on 7.7.1992 has been considered by the Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. A perusal of the relevant order has made me to hold that the same is "not speaking order" and cannot be termed as a "judgment" in the eyes of law. After the file was received from the Assistant Commissioner, Chichawatni, the report was called from the Head Vernacular Clerk who submitted his report before the District Collector on 4.7.1992 in favour of Anwar Ali and recommended that he may be appointed as a Lumbardar of Chak No. 37/12-L being a collateral of Hashmat Ali deceased Lumbardar. The Deputy Commissioner passed the order "Agreed" and signed as well as dated the same. Thereafter the same Head Vernacular Clerk sent a copy of the same to the Tehsildar Chichawatni vide order No. 37/HVC, dated 13.7.1992. At this stage I would like to refer to Section 5 of the Civil Procedure Code whereby if the revenue law is silent with regard to the procedure applicable to the Revenue Courts the Government has the power to alter the applicability of the Civil Procedure Code as regards proceedings before the Revenue Courts by excluding the applicability of or altering specific provisions of the Code not expressly made applicable to Revenue Courts by the Code. Legally the Revenue Courts are Civil Courts in the sense that they determine matters of civil nature. As Revenue Courts are Courts of civil jurisdiction, the Civil Procedure Code is by virtue of Section 141 of the Code and subject to the provisions of local laws and Section 5 of the Code applicable to proceedings before the Revenue Courts. No doubt the object behind Section 5, Civil Procedure Code is to prevent the enblock applicability of the Code to proceedings before Revenue Court and to preserve the summary character of such proceedings, but no notification of the Government has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner to make out that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable while deciding the case of the appointment of a Lumbardar. At this stage it is necessary to refer to rule 4 (2) of Order Civil Procedure Code according to which the judgment of the Court shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. It is pertinent to- mention that the Head Vernacular Clerk was not the Judicial Officer of the revenue hierarchy and his report cannot be termed to be the "judgment". The mention of the word "Agreed" has made me to hold that no judgment in the eyes of law was passed by the District Collector, Sahiwal on 7.7.1992 while disposing of the matter in favour of Anwar Ali petitioner who was appointed as the Lumbardar. At this stage it shall not be out of place to express that the District Collector in his capacity as the Deputy Commissioner is a representative of the State and being not disrespectful to him I am tempted to express that such a working of a Revenue Officer of his status cannot be approved which has also not been affirmed in the Revenue Hierarchy.
3. It would be proper to express at this stage that when the order of a lower Court contains no reasons the appellate/revisional Court is deprived of the benefit of the views of the lower Court and is unable to appreciate the process by which the decision has been reached. In the instant matter no exception can be taken to the impugned order dated 3.4.1995 passed by the learned Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and rather I would express that the District Collector, Sahiwal while passing order dated 7.7.1992, appointing Anwar Ali petitioner as the Lumbardar has worked in an arbitrary manner and it can safely be expressed that neither the justice has been done nor seems to have been done. The remand order dated 3.4.1995 passed by the learned Member (Revenue) Board oi Revenue, Punjab, Lahore need not be interfered with. Since expression "Agreed" dated 7.7.1992 given by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal it; with respect to the report of the Head Vernacular Clerk, Sahiwal the same is not "judgment" even and through the attraction of theory of merger the judgment dated 24.2.1993 passed by the Commissioner, Multan Division Multan is not able to correct and streamline the same. In short the very basis of the appointment of Anwar Ali as Lumbardar stands shattered am the impugned order' dated 3.4.1995 passed by the learned Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore is sustained as the same I legal and operative. There is no reason to take an exception thereto.
4. For what has been said above, I dismiss this writ petition. The parties can move the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal s< that the proceedings are processed with.