P L D (PLP)

NASIR AHMAD (MEMBER).‑‑Revision Petitions Nos. 57 and 58 of 1957‑58 Ghulam Hussain v. Muhammad Bashir and Feroze Din v. Muhammad Bashir will be disposed of by a single order as both the petitions have emanated from the same order and the same point is involved in both of them namely whether the petitions are competent under the law. A brief resume of the facts which is given below is essential for determining this issue. Feroze Din was appointed Lambardar of Chak No. 541/G.B., Tehsil Sammundari by the Collector, Lyallpur. Muhammad Bashir and Ghulam Hussain the rival candidates went in appeal to the Commissioner who set aside the appointment of Feroze Din and appointed Ghulam Hussain instead. Muhammad Bashir's appeal was dismissed. Feroze Din and Muhammad Bashir then came up to the Board of Revenue in second appeal and revision respectively. The Single Member who heard the two cases accepted the revision petition of Muhammad Bashir and dismissed the appeal of Feroze Din so that finally it is Muhammad Bashir who has been appointed Lambardar of the Village. It is against this appointment that the two petitions have been filed and which are under consideration before us. It may be mentioned that Ghulam Hussain has in fact filed a petition for review of the order‑ passed by the Single Member, but it was, contended before him (Mr. M. Z. Khan, C. S. P.) that since the case was connected with the revision petition filed by Feroze Din before the Full Board, the application for review should also be referred to the Full Board for an authoritative decision. The learned M. B. R. accepted this contention and has referred the petition to us accordingly. The law regarding review applications is quite clear and there is no provision in the Board of Revenue Act making it competent for the Full Board to adjudicate upon applications A of this kind. The petition is, therefore, returned to our learned brother who has jurisdiction in the matter for final decision and orders thereon. Ch. Ghulam Ali AM, Advocate who has addressed the Board on behalf of Kh. Abdur Rahim, counsel for Feroze Din has argued that Feroze Din's appeal was dismissed but as the Revision of Muhammad Bashir was accepted the impugned order could and should really be considered an order reversing or modifying an order of a subordinate Court namely that of the Commissioner. In our opinion this is a mistaken view of the factual position, which is this that the second appeal of Feroze Din was dismissed by the Single Member and the order thus passed by him was not an order modifying or reversing the order of the lower Court. It is an order of dismissal of an appeal straight and simple and under Rule 5 of the Rules frame under section 9 of the Board of Revenue Act, this revision petition is not competent. This law lays down in unambiguous terms of Rule 5 of the Rules framed under the Act that an application for revision shall lie to the Full Board only in case: where the order made or decree passed by the Court, subordinate to the Board is reversed or modified by a Member of the Board on appeal.

2. As a result, the revision petition of Feroze Din, is dismissed and the petition of Ghulam Hussain is returned for disposal to the learned M. B. R. concerned. A. H. Petition dismissed.