1984 PLP 3114 (CLC)

‑‑R. 17(ii) (c) read with R. 16(ii)(c)‑Appointment of Lambar dar‑Heir who was entitled to succeed to office of Lambardar on his death, could be ignored by Appointing Authority on ground of his absence from estate, if in opinion of Authority his absence from estate hindered performance of his duties as Lambardar. ‑‑R. 17(ii)‑Appointment of Lambardar‑Office of Lambardar is an administrative appointment‑Continuous presence of Lambardar in estate to discharge numerous duties of his office is extremely essential‑Appointment of Sarbrah may not serve same pur pose‑Duties of Lambardar in respective village stated. ‑‑‑S. 16 ‑ Revisional jurisdiction of Board of Revenue‑Person not suitable candidate for appointment of Lambardar on account of his permanent absence from estate despite his being eldest son of deceased Lambardar-Board of Revenue ordering appointment of younger brother of such person as Lambardar at his place, held, neither exceeded jurisdiction nor violated Rules relating to appointment of Lambardar. ‑‑ R. 17(ii)‑Appointment of Lambardar‑No one has a vested right to be appointed as Lam bard a r‑ Authorities could select person best suited for the purpose with a view to facilitate per formance of administrative function of Lambardar. Abdul Ghafoor v. The Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue and another 1982 S C M R 202 ref. Chaudhry Ghulam Sarwar was Lambardar of Chak No. 55/213 Tehsil Okara, District Sahiwal. With his death the post fell vacant. On the death of the said Lambardar, District Collector, Sahiwal acting under the rule of primogeniture vide his order, dated 8th April, 1983 appointed his eldest son Chaudhry Chulam Ullah as Lambardar of the said Chak. The appointment was made under rule 17(ii) of the Land Revenue Rules. Since Chaudbry Ghulam Ullah was residing in Lahore, the District Collector appointed Chaudbry Mansoor Ullah as Sarbarah Lambardar to perform the duties of the office. Chaudhry Ghulam Hussain respondent No. 2 and Col. Chaudhry Atta Uliab brother of the appointed Lambardar filed appeals against the appointment of Chaudhry Ghulam Ullah as Lambardar before the Commissioner, Multan Division. Both the appeals were dismissed by Mr. Rifat Pasha, learned Commissioner Multan vide order, dated 18th February, 1964. A revision was filed by Chaudhry Ghulam Hussain in the Board of Revenue. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, accepted the revision vide order, dated 29th December, 1966 (Annexure `D'). It was observed by the learned Member that Chaudhry Ghulam Ullah was residing in Lahore and his absence from the Estate worked against his appointment. Conse quently his appointment was set aside and the case was remanded to the Collector of the District to appoint a suitable Lambardar from amongst the other heirs of the deceased Lambardar.

2. It is admitted by Chaudary Aziz Ahmad, learned counsel appear ing for the petitioner that in pursuance to the remand order made by Member, Bard of Revenue, Col. Atta Ullah was appointed as Lambardar by the Collector. Col. Atta Ullah has also expired and now his eldest son has been appointed as Lambardar of the Estate in place of his deceased father.

3. I have beard the learned counsel for the petitioner and seen the record. Rule 17(ii) deal with appointment of successor Lambardar on the basis of rule of primogeniture. The rule for the facility of reference is quoted as under :‑ "17. (i) In an estate or sub‑division thereof, owned chiefly or altogether by Government, a successor to the office of headman shall be selected with due regard to all the considerations, other than hereditary claims, stated in rule 15: ‑ Provided that in such an estate, or sub‑division thereof notified for the purpose by the Financial Commissioner, the selection shall, as for as possible, be made in the manner pres cribed by sub‑rule (ii) if a suitable heir is forthcoming. (ii) In other estate the nearest eligible heir according to the rule of primogeniture shall be appointed unless some special custom of succession to the office be distinctly proved, but subject in ever case to the following provisions :‑ (a) the claim of a collateral relation of the last incumbent to succeed shall not be admitted solely on the ground of inheritance, unless the claimant is a descendant in the male line of the paternal‑great‑grandfather of the last incumbent. (b) where a headman has been dismissed in accordance with the provisions of rule 16 the Collector may refuse to appoint any of his heirs :‑ (1) if the circumstances of the offence, dereliction of duty, or dis qualification, for which the headman was dismissed make it probable that he would be unsuitable as a headman ; (2) if there is no reason to believe that he has connived at the offence of dereliction of duty for which the headman has been dismissed ; (3) If any disqualification for which the headman has been dismissed attaches to him ; (4) if he may reasonably ,be supposed to be under the influence of the dismissed headman or his family to an undesirable extents. Note.‑If a dismissed headman's heir is considered fit to succeed, regard shall be had to the property which he will inherit, to like manner as if he had already inherited it. (c) The Collector may also refuse to appoint person claiming as an heir on any ground, which would necessitate or justify the dismissal of person from the office of the headman. (d) A female is not ordinarily eligible for the office, but may be appointed when she is the sole owner of the estate for which the appointment has to be made, or, for special reasons, in other cases. (iii) Failing the appointment of an heir, a successor to the office shall be appointed in the manner, and with regard to the considera tions, described in rule 15. (iv) Election shall not in any case be resorted to as an aid in making appointments under this rule and rule 14." Rule 16 specifies the grounds for dismissal of a village headman. A headman appointed is liable to dismissal from the post of Lambardari if owing to his age, physical or mental incapacity or absence from the estate he is unable to discharge the duties of ‑his office. Combined reading of rule 17(ii)(c) with rule 16(ii)(c) goes to show that an heir entitled to succeed to the office of Lambardari can be ignored by the appointing authority on the ground of his absence from the estate, if in the opinion of the authority his absence from the estate hindered the performance of his duties as Lambardar. The Member, Board of Revenue, therefore, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, ignored the claim of Chaudhry. Ghulam Ullah the eldest son on the ground of his permanent absence from the estate. It has not been disputed that even now Chaudhry Ghulam Uilah is residing in Lahore. The Office of Lambardar is an administrative appointment. Continuous presence of the Lambardar in the estate to discharge numerous duties of his office is extremely essential. The appointment of a sarbarah may not serve the same purpose. In view of absence of Chaudhry Ghulam Ullah, from the estate and his residence to Lahore the Member, Board of Revenue therefore in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction rightly ignored the claim of Chaudhry Ghulam,Ullah.

4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Member, ‑Board of Revenue, while dismissing the appeal of Chaudhry Ghulam Hussain could not have set aside the appointment of Chaudhry Ghulam Ullah in revisional jurisdiction. It was further con tended by the learned counsel that if the learned Member chose to exercise his suo motu revisional jurisdiction then notice under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 was necessary, Since no notice had been given to Chaudhry Ghulam Ullah to support his appointment the revisional order is defective. This contention is devoid of any merit. Firstly the petitioner has not taken a specific ground on this score in the writ petition and in the absence of such a ground the petitioner cannot be allowed to urge this point after a lapse of about 17 years. Secondly the petitioner was present before the Member, Board of Revenue and was fully heard. Thirdly as is evident from the order, dated 29th December, 1966 passed in revision by learned Member that it was suggested by the petitioner that in case he is not considered eligible his younger brother Col. Atta Ullah who is the resident of the village may be appointed as Lambardar. Therefore it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner now to contend that the learned Member could not have set aside his appointment without a specific notice having been given to him to exer cising suo motu revisional jurisdiction, directing the appointment of a Lambardar from out of the heirs of the deceased.

5. As observed above, the post of Lambardar is a administrative appointment. By virtue of his office the Lambardar was to perform various duties and has to serve as a link between villagers and the local~ administration. The nature of duties demand his continued presence in the village. The competent authority therefore could have considered ground of absence from estate against the petitioner while making the appointment. The order therefore, fall within the jurisdiction of the learned Member, Board of Revenue. While remanding the case for fresh appointment in accordance with the rule of primogeniture, the learned Member, Board of Revenue has not violated the provisions of Land Revenue Rules. The office of Lambardari even after remand has remain ed in the family of the deceased Lambardar. Instead of Chaudhry Ghulam Ullah his younger brother Col. Atta Ullah who was a resident of the village had been appointed. With his death the Lambardari has passed on to his son.

6. Learned counsel has lastly contended that in numerous judg ments the Board of Revenue, has appointed the eldest male heir despite his absence from the estate and the appointed Lambardar has been allowed the facility of a Sarbarah. He has supplied a list of cases in which such a course has been adopted. However, the learned Member, Board of Revenue, whose jurisdiction was not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on a consideration of the instant case found that the petitioner, was not a suitable candidate on account of his permanent absence from the estate despite his being the eldest son of the deceased Lambardar. While ordering so the learned Member, Board of Revenue, has neither exceeded his jurisdiction nor violated the rules relating to the appointment of Lambardar. Besides it would not be appropriate at this stage to disturb the appointment made to the office of a Lambardar in pursuance of the order of remand by the Member, Board of Revenue. No stay order was issued by this Court when the writ petition was admitted for full hearing on 11th December, 1967.

7. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Abdul Ghajoor v. The Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue and another (1982 S C M R 202) observed :‑ "No one has a vested right to be appointed as Lambardar and the' relevant authorities select the persons best suited for the purpose with a view to facilitate the performance of administrative functions of Lambardars. In the present case all the competent authorities on the revenue side i.e. Collector, Commissioner and the Member, Board of Revenue after considering merits of both the sides have ultimately selected Nawab Khan respondent for the office in question. The learned Judge of the High Court were, therefore, justified in observing that even if the final order of the Member, Board of Revenue is assumed to be erroneous it could not be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court".

8. No case therefore is made out for the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The petition therefore, fails and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.