1999 PLP 221 (YLR)

Abdul Ghafoor v. The Member (Revenue, Board of Revenue and another 1982 SCMR 202; Muhammad Ramzan v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue and others 1989 SCMR 614 and Muhammad Waryam v. Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab and others 1972 S C M R 354 fol. Mian Habib-ur-Rehman Ansari for Petitioner. Ayyaz Muhammad Khan for Respondent No.1. Date of hearing: 2nd March, 1999. In the matter of the appointment of Lumbardar of Chak No.9/MR, Tehsil and District Multan. there was contest between Khan Muhammad petitioner and Abdur Rehman respondent No.2. The District Collector Multan appointed Abdur Rehman respondent No.2 as Lumbardar vide order, dated 2-10-1986 in place of the previous Lumbardar who was his father. Feeling aggrieved the appeal was preferred and the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan set aside the aforesaid order, dated 2-10-1986 and appointed Khan Muhammad petitioner as the Lumbardar vide order 3-7-1989. R.A.O. No.49 of 1989 was filed by Abdur Rehman respondent No.2 before the Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore which was accepted by Mr. Akhtar Saeed learned Member (Judicial-I) on 31-8-1994. He set aside the impugned order, dated 3-7-1989 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) and restored the order of District Collector, dated 2-10-1996 whereby Abdur Rehman was appointed as the Lumbardar of Chak No.9/MR, Tehsil and District Multan. The reasoning adopted by him was that Abdur Rehman was the son of the deceased Lumbardar Ali Muhammad and had the right to be appointed as such. Feeling aggrieved Khan Muhammad petitioner has filed this writ petition wherein he has assailed the vires of order, dated 31-8-1994 passed by the learned Member (Judicial-I) Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore on the grounds that the same was against the law and facts, that he owned more land in the village in comparison to Abdur Rehman and that the persons of Jat Caste were much more than the persons of the Caste of Abdur Rehman.

2. The comments have been received from the Board of Revenue. This appeal stands admitted.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties arid gone through the record before me. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the rule of primogeniture is not applicable to the instant dispute, that the land owned by the petitioner is more in area than owned by Abdur Rehman respondent No.2 and that he was a better candidate to be appointed as a Lumbardar. Learned counsel for Abdur Rehman laid the emphasis that the appointment of Lumbardar is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the Revenue Authorities and no Constitutional right of the petitioner stands infringed.

4. In my view the reasoning adopted by the learned counsel for Abdur Rehman respondent No.2 has to prevail. It is the admitted fact which also stands projected from the impugned order, dated 31-8-1994 passed by the learned Member (Judicial-I), Board of Revenue Punjab that Abdur Rehman respondent No.2 is the son of the previous Lumbardar Ali Muhammad since deceased. There is no need to express the contrary view to the assertion raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the selection of Lumbardar entirely is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities and that there is no need on the part of this Constitutional Court to interfere in the aforesaid discretion of the learned Member (Judicial-I) Board of Revenue Punjab who appointed Abdur Rehman respondent No.2 as the Lumbardar. I am tempted to express that even if the order of the learned Member Board of Revenue Punjab is assumed to be erroneous this fact alone is no ground for declaring it to be without lawful authority as this prayer is being claimed by the petitioner, who has no vested right to be appointed as a Lumbardar. It has been held in Abdul Ghafoor v. The Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue and another (1982 SCMR 202) that no one has a vested right to be appointed as a Lumbardar, that only the relevant authorities are the best Judge to select the persons best suited for the purpose with a view to facilitate performance of administrative functions of Lumbardar and that the High Court was justified in not interfering in the administrative discretion of competent Authorities of the revenue hierarchy about the appointment of the Lumbardar after considering merits of both sides and selecting the respondent for such an office. It has also been held in Muhammad Ramzan v. Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue and others (1989 SCMR 614) that the appointment of Lumbardar is essentially a matter of selection and the selection of one over the other when both were eligible by the competent authority cannot considered an act without lawful authority. Even earlier while dealing such a dispute under Article 98 of the Constitution, 1962 it was expounded in the ruling published as Muhammad Waryam v. Member Board of Revenue Punjab etc. (1972 SCMR 354) that selection of Lumbardar is entirely within the discretion of Revenue Authorities. As such there is no need to make the analysis of the impugned order of the learned Member (Judicial-I) Board of Revenue Punjab to find any flaw with the conclusion about the selection of Abdur Rehman respondent No.2 as Lambardar. I would express that no Constitutional right of the petitioner stands infringed. The disputes of selection of Lambardar can well be analysed and dissection by the revenue hierarchy and the impugned judgment having been passed by the highest Judicial Officer in the revenue hierarchy need not be interfered by this Constitutional Court.

5. Finding no force in this petition, I dismiss the same with costs. Q.M.H./K-97/L Petition dismissed.