2023 PLP 869 (MLD)

CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J.

For delivering this judgment, reference to the pleaded facts in brevity are that Muhammad Aslam son of Allah Bakhsh caste Sargana was permanent lumberdar of Chak No.91/10/R, Tehsil Khanewal, who having become landless was removed from said office by the District Collector via order dated 12.06.2007. The latter being Competent Authority ordered for initiation of process so that vacancy could be filled afresh and since then litigation inter se the contestants is on its way. Indeed, now in second cycle, the matter came here. In the first round, after being invited the candidates, who applied, their credentials were scrutinized by the Revenue Officer on the basis of Reports submitted by the Field Staff and on its basis further approved by the Collector/Assistant Commissioner, primarily Muhammad Aslam son of Ghulam Farid (respondent No.5) was appointed as Headman of the said village by the District Collector on 26.09.2007. Allah Nawaz Khan (present petitioner), Tassawar Hussain, respondent No.7 (who is also the petitioner of tagged W.P. No. 3086-2018) and one Fida Hussain (now deceased)] challenged his selection by preferring three appeals before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), who on 10.09.2008 while upsetting the order of District Collector appointed Fida Hussain as lumberdar, whereas learned Member (Board of Revenue) through order dated 18.02.2009 set aside the last appointment and restored choice of the District Collector (whereby Muhammad Aslam, respondent No.5 was appointed). However, this all exercise was bulldozed by this Court while deciding W.P. No.1807 of 2009 (along with allied petitions) via order dated 28.09.2015 and the case was remanded to the District Collector, Khanewal for redecision with the following direction:- Consequently, the Writ Petitions Nos. 1807, 2421, 2343, 2740 and 2877 of 2009 are accepted, all the orders passed by the revenue hierarchy are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Officer (Revenue) Collector, Khanewal, who will appoint Lamberdar of the concerned village while considering the merits and demerits of all the candidates by application of independent judicious mind after affording opportunity of hearing to all the concerned without being influenced by the order in any manner. However, Talib Hussain, one of the writ petitioner has since died and Writ Petition No. 2782/2009 filed by him having become infructuous is dismissed accordingly. The parties shall appear before the District Officer (Revenue) Collector, Khanewal on 15.10.2015 for further proceedings. Although this order was twicely assailed before the august Supreme Court via C.Ps. Nos.3512 to 3516 of 2015 as well as C.R.Ps. No.200 to 204 of 2016, but regretted on 25.04.2016 and 26.10.2016 respectively. In compliance of cited order of this Court, the District Collector, Multan (to whom the matter was transferred by learned Senior Member, BoR) vide order dated 08.06.2017 opined that none out of the contestants was eligible for the lumberdari post and required the subordination to initiate fresh process, but said conclusion could not hold the field. The Additional Commissioner (Revenue) before whom all the contenders preferred rival appeals, via order dated 28.08.2017 once again selected respondent No.5 against the post. This choice was confirmed by the learned Member (Board of Revenue), through order dated 07.12.2017. Being aggrieved of their elimination, the petitioner as well as respondents Nos.6 and 7 preferred this as well as tagged Writ Petitions Nos.3086 and the other No. 98 of 2018. Unfortunately the filer of latter Petition (respondent No.6) during its pendency died, thus his file having become abated/infructuous was independently disposed of through separate order of even date. The remaining available writ petitions are going to be decided through this single judgment. However, for reference, source will be file in hand.

2. Arguments as well as record considered.

3. The issue in hand pertains to selection of Lumberdar, which per settled law is purely an administrative post of its own class. It neither can be termed as profession nor a post against any profit, rather the Headman who holds an honorary post acts as bridge inter se the landowners and Revenue Authority, that is why, not a vested right of any person to claim his selection against said post. It, indeed, is the choice of Revenue Authority to appoint a suitable candidate per yardstick set out in rule 17 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968 for discharging the obligations assigned to him via terms of its rule

22. The object thereof would be that person best suited for the said post should be committed to facilitate the administration, so that command and control over the State land, Exchequer besides other affairs could be maintained. This view finds support from the law already laid down by the apex Court via judgments reported as Abdul Wahid v. The Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and another (1971 SCMR 719), Muhammad Shaffi v. Member(Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others (1972 SCMR 253), Abdul Ghafoor v. The Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue and another (1982 SCMR 202) and M. Nazir Ahmed v. Muhammad Aslam and others (2013 SCMR 363).

4. The inaugural argument of Pir Ahmad Shah Khagga, ASC worthy counsel for respondent No.7 that with reference to rule 17 of the Rules ibid the Revenue Hierarchy was bound to appoint his client having hereditary right is not well founded. The apex Court while dealing with the hereditary claim in terms of said rule through exhaustive decision reported as Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi v. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan (PLD 1999 SC 484) has held as under:- ***The objection with regard to provision of hereditary claim amongst other factors to be considered in matter of appointment under Rule 17 is without merit as this rule provides the relevant considerations which the Collector is to keep in view while making selection of the most suitable persons amongst the candidates. The cause to raise objection in respect of this Rule arose as the officer in the graded hierarchy of the revenue administration in their judgments came to accord hereditary claims , overriding effect, as against other consideration of area, tribe, community etc. If hereditary claim is taken only as one of the relevant considerations as contemplated in the rules, in favour of a candidate whose other merits are favourable comparable with other contestants, no cause of grievance will arise, rather it will meet the plea of the administration that by appointing a person from amongst the nearest eligible heir of previous lambardar continuity in the work and in liaison created between the land owners and the administration is intended to be achieved. Rule 17 is, therefore, not repugnant to any injunction of Islam. Thus, left no doubt that hereditary claim is not the sole criteria to select the lumberdar, rather basic object is to appoint the most suitable person among eligibles. The available record stands for that post in hand, in fact fell vacant, when previous lumberdar per his disqualification was removed. The right of heritage (hereditary claim) germinates, if a predecessor leaves his belongings, whereas in this case neither the outgoing lumberdar died nor said post remained with him, rather process for appointment of new incumbent might have been initiated/completed after removal of the last one during his lifespan wherein he himself could not compete, then how the same could be demanded by his nephew/ respondent No.7 as legacy. The available material suggests, which otherwise is confirmed by Mr. Khagga that his client/respondent No.7 is an uneducated person, who just holds very meagre land (10 Kanals), therefore was in no way suitable to be appointed against honorary post, especially when the other competitors had an edge on said counts.

5. As far as, case of Allah Nawaz Khan (petitioner) is concerned, he too presently holds less area as compared to the appointee/respondent No.5. Moreover, the petitioner is matriculate, whereas his contestant holds Certificate of Intermediate. The vital drawback of the petitioner was that he did not belong to the dominant tribe of the concerned village. In case of appointment against post of Lumberdar, per rule 17(e) ibid strength of community is one of the salient qualifications. For the reasons that respondent No.5 firstly is more educated; secondly has excess land and thirdly belongs to major tribe was unanimously recommended by the Revenue Field Staff, Tehsildar and the Collector/ Assistant Commissioner concerned. These Officials/Officer are directly associated with the affairs of Revenue Estates under their command and control, thus rightly given weight via impugned concurrent orders. As a matter of fact and record, respondent No.5, twicely in first cycle besides for same number in this round, was selected against the said post (since 26.09.2007 when firstly was appointed by the District Collector), who now became most experienced person and furnishing dhalbach without any complaint is the best among his rivalry, thus earned edge in all relevant fields. Moreover, his appointment was made by the concerned Authorities, who because of their experience and training are better qualified to make the choice than any forum else, whereas this Court is not supposed to act as a Court of appeal, especially, when nothing wrong could be highlighted.

6. As far as emphasis of learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.7 that newly appointed lumberdar-respondent No.5 is not a man of character, is concerned, admittedly, neither he ever was challenged/convicted nor a single penny is due towards him, thus there was nothing against him to be taken out of the contest.

7. Although Mr. Muhammad Riaz Jahania and Pir Ahmad Shah Khagga ASCs learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No.7 respectively argued the case to the best of their ability, but failed to persuade that either the impugned orders are coram non judice/ultra vires or suffering from any material irregularity/patent illegality, jurisdictional defect, rather per history of the case and law on the subject have perfectly been passed while exercising lawful authority by the Revenue Forum. These Writ Petitions having no merit and substance are dismissed. ZH/A-23/L Petitions dismissed.