2000 PLP 2742 (YLR)

Admittedly the appeal filed by Habib Ullah (father of the petitioner) was dismissed by the Commissioner, Rawalpindi on account of death of Habibullah holding the same to have abated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the said proceedings did not abate and has referred to rule 5 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, a reference to which has also been made. A perusal of rule 5 shows that it falls in Part lI pertaining to procedure of Revenue Officers. The appointment of Village Headman (Lambardar) falls within Part III of the rules referred above. Rule 17 relates to matter to be considered in case of first appointment of Lambardar whereas rule 18 pertains to dismissal of Headman. Rule 19 pertains to matters to be considered in appointment of successor of a Lambardar. Thus in the instant case the only relevant provision is rule 19 and not rule 5 as referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Rule 19 which relates to matters to be considered in appointment of successor of a Lambardar reads as follows:‑‑‑ "

19. Matters to be considered in appointment of successor. ‑‑‑(I) In an estate or sub‑division thereof, owned chiefly or altogether by Government, successor to the office of Headman shall be selected, with due regard to all the consideration, other than hereditary claims, stated in rule 17: Provided that in such an estate or sub‑division thereof, notified for the purpose by the Board of Revenue, the selection shall, as far as possible, be made in the manner prescribed by sub‑rule (2) if a suitable heir is forth coming. (2) In other estates, the nearest eligible heir, according to the rule of primogeniture shall be appointed unless some special custom of succession to the office be distinctly proved but subject in every case to the following provisions:‑‑ (a) The claim of a collateral of the last incumbent to succeed, shall not be admitted solely on the ground or inheritance unless the claimant is a descendant, in the male line, of the paternal great‑grandfather of the last incumbent. (b)where a fireman has been dismissed in accordance with the provisions of rule 18, the Collector may refuse to appoint any of his heirs‑‑‑ (i) if the circumstances of the offence, dereliction of duty or disqualification, for which the Headman was dismissed, make it probable that he would be unsuitable as a Headman; (ii) if there is reason to believe that he has connived at the offence or dereliction of duty for which the Headman has been dismissed; (iii) if any disqulification for which the Headman has been dismissed, attaches to him; (iv) if he may reasonably‑ be supposed to be under the influence of the dismissed Headman or his family to an undesirable extent. Explanation. ‑‑‑If a dismissed Headman's heir is considered fit to succeed, regard shall be had to the property which he would inherit. (c) The Collector may also refuse to appoint person claiming as an heir, on any ground which would necessitate or justify the dismissal of the person from the office of the Headman. (d) A female is not ordinarily eligible for "appointment to the office of a Headman, but may be appointed, when she is the sole owner of the estate for which the appointment has to be made, or, for special reasons. (3) Failing the appointment of an heir, a successor to the office shall be appointed in the manner, and with regard to the considerations, described in rule 17. (4) Election shall not, in any case, be resorted to as an aid in making appoints, under this rule and rule 16.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to convince this Court by referring to rule 5 which deals to the effect that death or marriage of a party shall not cause .the proceedings to abate. This rule 5 in no way is relevant for the adjudication of the matter in issue. As the provisions of rule 5 form part and parcel of the procedure which is to be followed by the Revenue Officer so it has got no concern whatsoever with the proceedings pertaining to the appointment of a successor of Lamabardar. Even if it is assumed that the provisions of rule 5 are relevant for the adjudication of appointment of a successor of Lambardar the said point. was agitated by the petitioner before the Member. Board of Revenue while moving a revision petition against order, dated 22‑6‑1994 and the said contention was not accepted as is evident from order, dated 6‑2‑1998. Again this point was agitated by the petitioner by tiling a review petition which also met the same fate as is evident from the order, dated 25=4‑1999. Thus, the point which has been agitated in the instant writ petition was agitated, considered and rejected by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Thus the point agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force.

7. Besides the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is evident from the authorities referred by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the revenue authorities are the best judge in case of appointment of Lambardar or successor of lambardar and High Court has rightly refused to give relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It has also been held in the said authorities that no one has vested right to be appointed as Lambardar and the relevant authorities select the persons best suited for the purpose with a view to facilitate the performance of administrative functions C entrusted to the Lambardars. In the instant case the application moved by respondent No.2 was processed in accordance with law and he was adjudged to be a suited person for the appointment of Lambardar by the Assistant Commissioner vide his recommendations, dated 3‑4‑1995 which were approved by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector vide his order, dated 5‑4‑1995. The said order was challenged by way of appeal . which was‑ dismissed on account of abatement by the order of the Commissioner, dated 22‑6‑1996. A revision petition filed against the said order was dismissed vide order, dated 6‑2‑1998 and a review petition against the said order was dismissed vide order, dated 24‑5‑1999.

8. For what has been stated above, it is evident that the orders passed by the Commissioner, dated 22‑6‑1994 do not suffer from any legal infirmity. Consequently writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./S‑63/L Petition dismissed.