YLR 2006

2006 PLP 2594 (YLR)

ABDUL MAJEED KHAN — Petitioner Versus SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 4 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Writ Petition No.6845 of 2006, decided on 26th June, 2006.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Muzammal Khan, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2006 PLP 2594 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Muhammad Muzammal Khan, J
Parties ABDUL MAJEED KHAN — Petitioner Versus SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 4 others — Respondents
Primary Law (b)West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), (a)West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 2594 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: (b)West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), (a)West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 2594 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Muzammal Khan, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 2594 (YLR) (ABDUL MAJEED KHAN — Petitioner Versus SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(b)West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) (a)West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Headnotes / Summary

S.36

West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, R.19

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Appointment of petitioner as Village Officer/Headman

Validity

Petitioner had been removed from government service on charge of nepotism and tampering with official record

Such order of removal from service remained intact up to Supreme Court

Petitioner was also defaulter of Agricultural Bank

Petitioner, in circumstances, was debarred from holding office of Village Headman

Such post was declared to be open for fresh appointment after inviting applications from residents of concerned village.

S.36

West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, R.19

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199

Constitutional petition

Village Officer/Headman, appointment of

Exclusive discretion of Revenue Authorities to make such appointment

High Court not a court of facts

No scope for interference of High Court in such discretion unless exercised arbitrarily or fancifully. Muhammad Younis v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue 1988 SCMR 447; Muhammad Ramzan v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue and others 1989 SCMR 614; Ghulam Ahmad v. Member, Board of Revenue and 2 others PLD 1989 SC 344 and Haji Ahmad Yar v. Allah Ditta and another PLD 1989 SC 373 rel.

Art.199

Lawful decision of court below within ambit of its jurisdiction

Not liable to be substituted in constitutional petition. Petitioner in Person.

Judgment & Decree

MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.

Instant constitutional petition challenged order dated 20-2-2006, passed by the Member Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore, to be declared illegal, void and of no legal consequence, whereby DO(R), Pakpattan Sharif, was directed to initiate proceedings for appointment of headman (Lamberdar) of Chak No.57/EB Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif.

2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that on death of Mehdi Khan Lamberdar of the above referred Chak, Deputy Commissioner concerned invited applications for filling the vacancy and in response thereto six candidates filed their respective applications. D.C./District Collector vide his order dated 20-2-2001 appointed the petitioner as headman on the ground that he owned 33-Kanals of agricultural land, held degree of B.Sc. Engineering, was quite physically healthy with the age of 46 years and was energetic enough to perform the duties of the office but he subsequently on 19-3-2001 reviewed his earlier order on review petition filed by one Ikram Ullah Khan.

3. Petitioner aggrieved of order of review, whereby first appointment was withdrawn, filed an appeal before the then Commissioner (EDO(R) where the vacancy was ordered to be filled after inviting fresh applications. Order in appeal was maintained by the Board of Revenue and consequently instant petition.

4. I have heard the petitioner and have examined the record, appended herewith. Petitioner undisputedly, had been an Assistant Director in the Directorate of Industries and Mineral Development Department Punjab, Lahore, wherefrom he was removed with the charge of nepotism and tampering with official record. The order of removal of the petitioner from service remained intact up to the Honourable Supreme Court, wherefrom his C.P.L.A. No.849-L of 1994 was dismissed on 6-12-1995. Respondent No.1 has a remarked in the impugned order that petitioner is defaulter of Rs.65, 178 of Agricultural Development Bank, Mianchannu and his credentials along with Ikram Ullah Khan and Nasrullah Khan, the opposing candidates were required to be determined in an open assembly of the village. The post in question was declared to be open/vacant, for fresh appointment after inviting applications from residents of the Chak and the writ petitioner was correctly debarred from holding the office of headman of the Chak in question.

5. Under law, appointment of a headman is exclusive discretion of Revenue Authorities and unless the same is exercised arbitrarily or fancifully, there is no scope for interference in constitutional B jurisdiction of this Court because it is not a Court of facts. While forming this view, I have to my credit judgments in the cases of Muhammad Younis v. Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue 1988 SCMR 447; Muhammad Ramzan v. Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue and others 1989 SCMR 614; Ghulam Ahmad v. Member, Board of Revenue and 2 others PLD 1989 SC 344 and Haji Ahmad Yar v. Allah Ditta and another PLD 1989 SC 373.

6. Besides the reasons noted above, scan of record and impugned order revealed that controversy was correctly put to rest without committing any error of law. Even otherwise, just/lawful decision within the ambit of conferred jurisdiction C cannot be substituted on this petition, which being devoid of any merit, is dismissed in limine. S.A.K./A-135/L?????????? Petition dismissed.