2004 PLP 440 (YLR)

2. The facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are to the effect that Abdul Ghaffar, Lumbardar of Chak No. 178 RB, Tehsil Safdar Abad had resigned from the post of Lumbardar on 18-6-1990. His resignation was accepted by the District Collector, Sheikhupura, through his order dated 12-7-1990 and also accorded permission for inviting fresh application for appointment of a successor/new Lumbardar. Wide publicity had been made in the village to invite applications for the post of Lumbardar; many candidates including the petitioner applied for the said post: After observing codal formalities the Tehsildar/Revenue Officer, Safdar Abad forwarded the case to Assistant Commissioner, Sheikhupura, who through his report, dated 2-3-1991 recommended the name of Rasheed Ahmad Khan respondent No.4 for appointment as, permanent ' Lumbardar. The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector after hearing the candidates appointed Rasheed Ahmad as permanent lumbardar of Chak No. 17 vide his order dated 23-10-1991.

3. Aggrieved by this order, four persons/contesting candidates' namely Sardar Muhammad, Haji Ghulam Rasool, Muhammad Asghar and the present petitioner have filed appeals before the Commissioner, Lahore Division but all the appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 19-8-1997. Feeling aggrieved of the same, present petitioner Muhammad Jameel filed R.O.R. No.3560 of 1995 which was disposed of by respondent No. 1 vide his order dated 21-1-2002, maintaining the order of the District Collector/Commissioner creating a 3rd post of Lumbardar in the said Chak.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner is a member of Arain Community and legible for appointment as Lumbardar against respondent No.4 who belongs to the minority group of inhabitants (Rajput). Further contended that the strength of the Community in the village cannot be ignored while appointing Lumbardar, as the Aram community is the major community.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and record perused.

6. While appointing permanent Lumbardar-Headman of the village the controversy of appointment shall be decided according to law taking into consideration all the requirements of Rule 17 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 among other matters which is to be read conjunctively. Those are (i) the hereditary claims of the candidates, (ii) extent of property in the estate, if there are no sub divisions of the estate, and in case there be sub-divisions of the estate the extent of the property in the sub-division for which appointment is to be made, possessed by the candidate, (iii) services rendered to the Government by him or by his family; (iv) his personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness; - (v) the strength and ' importance of the community from which selection of a headman is to be made; and (vi) his ability to undergo training in Civil Defence in the case or headmen in Tehsils situated along the Border.

7. It is a. settled principle that choice of the Collector for appointment of Lumbardar should not be ordinarily interfered unless there is a very serious irregularity, injustice or perverseness in the Collector's order for the Commissioner to feel justified in upsetting it, and it has further been observed that where order of the Collector is reversed on extraneous consideration and irrelevant factors such order is liable to be set aside.

8. Respondent No.4 was found better suited and superior to petitioner in. 'all respects by the Revenue Officer from Collector up to the Member, Board of Revenue, the competent authority in hierarchy of Revenue Department, after considering respective merits of contestants, selected respondent No.4 successful candidate for appointment as a Lumbardar of the village. The Revenue Officer had not violated the rules relating to appointment of Lumbardar, the choice of Collector had been confirmed up to Board of Revenue could not be challenged in the writ jurisdiction. Reliance can be placed in this respect upon the case of Shahbaz Khan v. Muhammad Umar and another 1985 MLD 366.

9. Respondent No.4 Rashid Ahmad Khan was appointed as Lumbardar of the village by the Revenue Authorities belongs to minor group (Rajput). The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to prove the petitioner a better candidate for appointment as Lumbardar qua respondent No.4.

10. The learned Member, Board of Revenue/respondent No. l has .created third post of Lumbardar and directed that the said vacancy be filled from the major community. The proceedings of selection of 3rd candidate/Lumbardar are in progress and the learned Member, Board of Revenue by passing the impugned order directed the District Officer (Revenue), Sheikhupura to consider the merits of petitioner while passing the-final appointment order against the third vacancy of Lumbardar. The right of the petitioner to contest in the 3rd vacancy has been maintained by respondent No. 1.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or violation of any rule for appointment of Lumbardar or that the said order has been passed without lawful authority. The impugned orders passed by Revenue Officer are unexceptionable call for no interference.

12. For the foregoing reasons this writ petition being devoid of force is dismissed. M.H./M-2320/L Petition dismissed.