PLJ 1987
Present: raja afrasiab khan, J BASHIR AHMED—Petitioner
versus
MEMBER
(REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB,
Writ Petition No. 2450 of 1987,
dismissed on 7-7-1987
Constitution of
-------- Art. 199 read with West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 — R. 17—Headman—Appointment of—Challenge to—Writ jurisdiction —Interference in—Finding of fact recorded by competent forum after considering evidence of parties on their merits and demerits fot office of Lambardar—No constitutional or legal infirmity in impugned order pointed out—Held : Impugned order having been passed by Member Board of Revenue with lawful authority, no substance in constitutional petition to be found in case.
[P. 483]A
Syed Jamshed AH ; Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Muhammad Aslam Sindhu, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
Date of hearing : 7-7-1987.
order
The petitioner Bashir Ahmed has moved this Constitutional petition against the respondents praying therein that the impugued orders dated 16-2-1987 and 27-1-1986 passed by the learned Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, respondent No. 1 and the learned Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Sheikhupura, respondent No. 2, respectively, be declared without lawfal authority and of no legal consequence.
2. The case pertains to the
appointment of permanent lambardar of village Kud Lathi, Tehsil and District
Sheikhupura. One Mahboob Alara was the lambardar of ..he
aforesaid revenue estate and
he was dismissed from the office vide
order dated 26-3-1979 passed by the learned District Collector and in his
place respondent No. 3, Ghulam Ahmed
Awan, was appointed as a permanent
lambardar vide the order
dated 26-11-1980 passed by the Collector Sheikhupura. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid appointment of
respondent No. 3 before the learned
Commissioner on the ground that no
proclamation was made
in the village
for inviting applications. The appeal
of the petitioner before the
learned Commissioner succeeded and the case was remanded vide his order dated 5-9-1981. In pursuance of the afosesaid remand order, applications for the appointment of lambardar
were invited and
accordingly as many as eight persons including the petitioner
and respondent No. 3,
applied for the office. The Tehsildar
Sheikhupura recommended that the petitioner be appointed as permanent
lambardar of the revenue estate.
However, the learned
Deputy Commissioner/Collector, vide his order dated 27-1-1986 (Annexure
'B' appointed respondent No.
3 as permanent Lambardar of the
village. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Additional Commissioner, Revenue,
Lahore, and accordingly the learned
Additional Commissioner set aside the order
of the Collector and appointed the petitioner as permanent Lambardar of the village vide his order dated 21-4-1986 (Anaexure'D'). Respondent No. 3 challenged the order dated
21-4-1986, by filing & revision
before the learned Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, The learned Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue,
after hearing the parties and
considering the pros and cons of the case, accepted the revision petition and set aside the order
passed by the Additional Commissioner
and restored that of the learned Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Sheikhupura, vide his order
dated 16-2-S9U7 (Annexure "F'). The
petitioner, as mentioned above, has challenged the vires of the order dated 16-2-1987 passed by the learned Member
(Revenue) Board of Revenue,
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the order of the Collector is
not based on any evidence inasmuch
as the provisions
con
tained in rule 17 of
the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules,
1968, have not been followed. It ii submitted that the order passed by the learned Collector appointing respondent No. 3 as headman of the village, is
defini tely a perverre and arbitrary
order. Learned counsel for
respondent No. 3 submitted that
the learned Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, after considering the entire evidence and after hearing the
parties, has given a finding of fact
which cannot be interfered with in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
4. I have
heard learned counsel for the parties at great length and have perused the record very minutely. Respondent
No. 3 was twice selected by two
different Collectors, once in 1979 and then in 1986 for his appoint ment as headman
of the village. In
the opinion of both
the learned Collectors,
respondent No. 3 was a suitable
candidate for appointment as Lambardar of the revenue
estate. The learned
Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, after considering this aspect of
the case, came to the conclusion that
respondent No. 3 was the choice
of the learned Collector who is the
best judge for such appointment. The
learned Member Board of Revenue
further observed that respoadent
No. 3 has been satisfactorily working
as headman of thi village for th3 last 6/7 years. This is a
finding of fact given by the
competent forum after considering the
evidence of he parties on their meriti and demerits for the
office of ambardar. Tnis
s the
function wholly reserved
for its performance
by the Revenue Authorities and ihis function has
effectively been performed by the
learned Collector and
accordingly the choice of the learned Collecior was duly confirmed
by the learned Member Board of Revenue. Learned counsel
for the
petitioner has not
been able to demonstrate before
me that the impugned order dated
16-2-1987 suffers from any
constitutional or legal infirmity.
It was observed by the learned Member Board of Revenue that respondent
No. 3 has
a very impressive
personality and he is better educated than the petitioner. This
is the requirement of law.
The impugned order has been
passed by him with lawful
authority and I do not find
any substance in the petition aud accordingly I proceed to dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their own
costs.
Petition dismissed