1996 SCMR 377 (PLP)
FATEH MASEIH‑‑‑Petitoner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1996 SCMR 377 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Hussain Sial and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ |
| Parties | FATEH MASEIH‑‑‑Petitoner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 SCMR 377 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 SCMR 377 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Hussain Sial and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 SCMR 377 (PLP) (FATEH MASEIH‑‑‑Petitoner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Rana Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court with Mr. C.M Latif, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th December, 1995
- 3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner having served as temporary Lambardar of the village since 1952, was entitled to be appointed as permanent Lambardar, as against Inayat Maseih respondent, who had no preferential claim than that of the petitioner. It was further contented that the vacancy of permanent Lambardar in the estate did not occur, therefore, the petitioner cannot be dislodged from the office of the Lambardar held by him since long.
- 4. We have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner, but finding no substance in them. The appointment of Lambardar is prerogative of the revenue officers. All the three revenue officers, namely, Collector, Commissioner and Member, Board of Revenue, did not hold the petitioner suitable for appointment as Lambardar of the estate. The Member in his order quoted an extract from the order of the Collector to the effect that the petitioner was usual defaulter, and had been sent to jail many times for defaulting in payment of Government dues. The Dhal Bach of the estate at many occasions was entrusted to other people for realisation of the Government dues.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 7‑5‑1995, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in W.P. No. 5463/1995). West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968‑‑ ‑‑‑‑R. 1'7‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185= (3)‑‑‑Appointment of Lambardar‑‑‑Petitioner's attempt to become Lambardar did not succeed before all the revenue forums who were unanimous in the appointment of respondent as Lambardar‑‑‑Petitioner's Constitutional petition against unanimous verdict of revenue forums did not bear fruit ‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Appointment of Lambardar being prerogative of Revenue Officers, all the three Revenue Officers viz. Collector,. Commissioner and Member, Board of Revenue, did not find petitioner suitable, for appointment as Lambardar of the estate‑‑‑Member, Board of Revenue had noted in his order that petitioner was usual defaulter and had been sent to jail many times for defaulting in payment of Government dues ‑‑‑Dhal Bach of estate at many occasions was entrusted to other people for realization of Government dues during the period petitioner had been working as temporary Lambardar‑‑‑Appointment of respondent who was unanimously found suitable for appointment as permanent Lambardar, could not be set at naught without lawful justification‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑‑‑Fateh Maseih petitioner seeks leave to appeal against order dated 7‑5‑1995 of the Lahore High Court, :whereby W.P. No. 5463/95 filed by him, was dismissed.
2. This petition arises out of dispute regarding appointment of Lambardar in Chak No. 38/D.B., Tehsil and District Khushab. The petitioner claims that he was acting as temporary Lambardar of the aforesaid village since 1952. On his application that his appointment be regularised as permanent Lambardar of the State, the District Collector vide order dated 27‑9‑1992 appointed Inayat Masih respondent No.4 as permanent Lambardar and dismissed the petitioner's application. The order of the Collector Khushab, was maintained in appeal by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, and in revision by the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, vide orders dated 3‑12‑1992 and 30‑3‑1995, respectively.. Aggrieved by the aforementioned orders, petitioner filed W.P. No. 5463/95, in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed vide impugned order referred to above.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner having served as temporary Lambardar of the village since 1952, was entitled to be appointed as permanent Lambardar, as against Inayat Maseih respondent, who had no preferential claim than that of the petitioner. It was further contented that the vacancy of permanent Lambardar in the estate did not occur, therefore, the petitioner cannot be dislodged from the office of the Lambardar held by him since long.
4. We have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner, but finding no substance in them. The appointment of Lambardar is prerogative of the revenue officers. All the three revenue officers, namely, Collector, Commissioner and Member, Board of Revenue, did not hold the petitioner suitable for appointment as Lambardar of the estate. The Member in his order quoted an extract from the order of the Collector to the effect that the petitioner was usual defaulter, and had been sent to jail many times for defaulting in payment of Government dues. The Dhal Bach of the estate at many occasions was entrusted to other people for realisation of the Government dues.
5. In these circumstances, the appointment of Inayat Masih, who was unanimously held suitable for the appointment of permanent Lambardar cannot be set at naught without lawful justification. In the result, this petition has no merit, which is dismissed and leave to appeal refused. A.A./F‑379/S Leave refused.