' The points agitated in this petition for review of the order of my learned predecessor in brief are that Patti to Chak No,128/WB, Tehsil Mailsi was merged with Patti of adjacent Cooperative Farming Scheme thereby giving the status to the estate as chiefly owned by the Government rendering thereby Rules 19 sub-rule (2) as in operative; that the Revenue Record baring Misal Haqiat 1961-62 was not produced before my predecessor and that District Collector had rightly passed the order appointing the petitioner as Lambardar of the Deh taking into consideration demerits of the respondent who was involved in forgery of record and absence from the estate. It was also submitted that Jat brothers is in majority in the estate and the petitioner belongs to this community.
2. I have carefully perused the order of my learned predecessor regarding these points. It is observed therein that:--
(a) "There is, however, nothing on the record to show that these two Pattis have been merged and the Lambardaris reduced from two to one."
(b) I have seen the record".
(c) The rule of primogeniture has to be applied to the succession--Abdul Hameed cannot be .Debarred unless he suffers from any serious disqualification under which he would be liable to be dismissed if he were Lambardar."
(d) I find the respondent suffering from no such disqualification. Even if he resides in the adjoining estate that would not disqualify him.
(e) The community of the respondent Abdul Hameed namely Gujjar community is more numerous than the community of the petitioner namely Jat community both in numbers and the acreage they own."
3. The aforesaid narration will clearly reveal that all the points, which have been raised in the review petition were considered and adjudicated upon by my learned predecessor. There is no gainsaying the fact that section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, does not contemplate the successor of the Member, Board of Revenue to determine the tenability of the order of his predecessor as an Appellate Court. The ingredients of section 8 (ibid) are wholly missing in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this review petition and as such it deserves dismissal which is accordingly ordered.
Review .