P L D 1959 W (PLP)

S. 16‑Board will not entertain revision petitions unless parties have exhausted all other remedies e.g. petitions to Collector or Commissioners. These are four revision petitions against the order of Assis tant Collector, II Grade, Vehari, dated 13‑6‑1957, whereby in supersession of his previous order, dated 8‑6‑1957, he directed the dispossession of the petitioners from the land in question. The facts of these cases are that the respondent who is the landlord filed four suits for the ejectment of the petitioners from their tenancies under section 3, of Act XIII of 1950. The Assistant Collector, II Grade, Vehari by his order, dated 4‑4‑1955 directed the ejectment of the petitioners. On appeal the Collector, Multan, by his order, dated 7‑6‑1955 remanded the case to the Assistant Collector, II Grade for fresh decision after recording the evidence of the parties. The Assistant Collector, II grade, made fresh enquiries and again ordered the ejectment of the petitioners from the land in question. Appeals against this order preferred before the Collector, Multan, were dismissed on 22‑8‑1956. Subsequently the petitioners filed revision petitions before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Multan, who by his order, dated 2‑2‑57 remanded the petitions to the Collector for fresh decision with the direction that an adequate opportunity should be given to the parties to produce their evidence. In pursuance of the order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Multan, the Assistant Collector II grade, Vehari, by his order, dated 8‑6‑1956 directed the restoration of the possession f the petitioners but on 13‑6‑1957 in supersession of his previous o3er he ordered that the petitioners should again be dispossessed from the land in dispute. The present petitions have been lodged against this order of the Assistant Collector II Grade, Vehari. The law provides for an appeal before the Collector against the order of the Assistant Collector, II grade and for a revision before the Commissioner, if the petitioners were dissatisfied from the Collector's order. It is true that the Board of Revenue is the final authority with revisional jurisdiction but it would not be desirable for the Board to entertain petitions of this nature from the orders of the subordinate revenue authorities unless the petitioners have exhausted all the other remedies provided by law to seek redress. The petitioner's allegation that since the res pondent is a big landlord and an influential person they do not expect justice from the Courts of the Commissioner and the Collector, is not sufficient to justify direct intervention by the Board. I note that the petitioners have also come up to the Board against the order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), dated 2‑2‑1957 and those petitions are fixed for pacca hearing on 25‑10‑1957. For the reasons explained above I am not prepared to entertain these petitions and I dismiss them accordingly in limine. A. tt. Petitions dismissed.