P L D 1962 W (PLP)

This is an application for a review of my order dated 3‑3‑1960 ; by which I had set aside the order of the Commis sioner, Multan Division directing the creation of an additional Lambardari for Chak No. 30‑G.B., Tahsil Okara. Two main issues have been raised in this petition : firstly, that the petitioner who is merely one of the residents of the estate in question was a necessary party to the proceedings but he was not impleaded with mala fide motives by the present Lambardar and thus the order passed in revision is ex parte and bad in law. Secondly that the order passed by the Commissioner creating the additional Lambardari is final and is not subject to revision by the Board of Revenue. I will deal with the two points below: ‑ Khawaja Abdur Rahim who has appeared on behalf of the petitioner has not been able to show any law in support of his second contention. He has merely relied on Land Revenue Rule 14, which lays down that once the number of Lambardaris has been fixed additional Lambardaris can only be created by the Commissioner and reduction in Lambardaris can only be carried out under the orders of the Board of Revenue. This rule cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed to mean that the order of the Commissioner is final particularly in view of the general provisions regarding revision contained in section, 16 of the Land Revenue Act, the heading of which runs as follows: ‑ Powers to call for, examine and revise proceedings of Revenue Officers. These powers are extensive and the limitation which Khawaja Abdur Rahim seeks to place on them is not warranted by law or any ruling of the Financial Commissioners or the Board of Revenue, and I would, therefore, reject this plea. As regards the first contention: as already observed the peti tioner is merely a resident of the estate and the creation of an additional Lambardari in it does not confer on him any right which would be infringed if the order creating the Lambardari is set aside. The mere fact that he may be a prospective candidate for the post does not mean that he has a right to it. This is al proposition which requires no further elaboration. The learned Advocate has also taken me through the merits of the case. As already observed by me In the order which it is sought to be review, there was no justification for a creation of this additional Lambardari and the orders passed by the learned Commissioner seems to me to be unnecessary and uncalled for. In these circumstances the revisional powers of the Board of Revenue have been rightly invoked. As a result of the above discussion I would reject this petition. K. M. A. Petition rejected.