Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: HAKIM KHAN VS Respondent: ATA MUHAMMAD
P L D 1961 W
P L D 1961 W. P. (Rev.) 82
Before Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue
West Pakistan
HAKIM KHAN‑Petitioner
versus
ATA MUHAMMAD‑Respondent
Review No. 49/5 of 1960‑61, decided on 5th December 1960, District Lyallpur.
Review‑No new evidence, error or omission patent on face of record‑Review not competent.
Shameem Qadri for Petitioner.
ORDER
This application for a review has been filed against my order dated 7‑10‑1960 whereby the order of the Commissioner, Multan, dated 3‑5‑1960, setting aside the appointment of the petitioner 4i, a Lambardar was upheld. The main point that has been taken up in the petition is that the petitioner belongs to the Pathan community who are in majority and is more capable and more influential than the respondent. All these facts had been gone into by the learned Commissioner and also by me when the case was decided. A new tribal composition is now put forward but as already observed by me, the learned Commissioner took pains to verify the constitution of this estate and at that time the figures supplied by, the Collector clearly indicated that Baluchs constituted the dominant tribe. The statement now filed is alleged to have been prepared by the village Patwari and has not been verified by any senior Revenue Officer. There will be no end to enquiries if question of facts already determined by a Commissioner are not accepted in the Board of Revenue. As already observed all these points were considered by the learned Commissioner and also by me and there is no new evidence or error or omission patent on the face of the record to justify a review of the order already passed.
K. M. A. Petition rejected.