1969 PLP 323 (SCMR)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑The petitioner in this case was an applicant for the office of Lambardar of Chak No. 453, Tehsil and District Jhang. He is a lot Naul by caste and a resident of the Chak. As there was no other applicant in the field at the time, the Assistant Collector recommended his appointment on the 6th August 1966, but before the Tehsildar the respondent No. 2 also came in as a candidate on the 8th August 1966. The latter application was sent to the Revenue Assistant but was not entertained as the petitioner's application had already been disposed of. The respondent went up in appeal to the Collector but the appeal was dismissed and the appointment of the petitioner confirmed. There was a further appeal to the Commissioner but the same was also rejected on the 22nd August 1967. On a belated revision application filed on the 27th December 1967, the Member Board of Revenue, however, found both the persons unsuitable for appointment. The order appointing the petitioner was, accordingly, set aside and directions issued for inviting fresh applications excluding both the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 from the contest. A review against this order was dismissed by a successor Member Board of Revenue on the 12th October 1968. The reasons given by the learned Member Board of Revenue for disqualifying the petitioner were (i) that he belonged to a tribe which was in minority in the Chak; and (ii) that he had been previously convicted in 1953 for an offence under section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The respondent No. 2 was disqualified, because, the police report disclosed that he had been involved in several criminal cases; was suspected to be a receiver of stolen properties and had, in fact, not put in his application within the time fixed by the proclamation. From this order the petitioner came up to the High Court under Article 98 of the Constitution but a Division Bench of the High Court, after fully considering each of the arguments advanced on his behalf, challenging not only the legality of the order of the Member Board of Revenue but also its correctness on merits, came to the conclusion that none of the arguments raised any question relating to the jurisdiction of the learned Member, Board of Revenue. There was no question here of the learned Member having exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him or of his successor having refused to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him. All the arguments advanced merely suggested that the learned Member Board of Revenue had acted erroneously in the exercise of his jurisdiction. That could not furnish a valid ground for (interference under Article 98 of the Constitution. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal. The same arguments have been repeated before us and it is contended that the order of the learned Member Board of Revenue, fn revision, suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record, in so far as he had entertained a time‑barred revision petition even though the. Commissioner had clearly noted this defect on the petition itself when forwarding the same. As pointed out by the High Court, the Member Board of Revenue's jurisdiction in revision is of a very wide nature by the combined effect of section 4 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 (Act XI of 1957) and section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. We see no reason to disagree with this view. The next contention that the review had been wrongly refused by the successor Member is also without any substance. This too is, worst, only an adverse erroneous decision in a review. But that is not a sufficient ground for interference under Article 98 of the Constitution, because under this Article the High Court does not act as a Court of error or as a Court of appeal. In the circumstances we see no ground for granting leave. The petitioner was rightly disqualified. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.