2017 PLP 1397 (MLD)

IBAD UR REHMAN LODHI, J.

Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has called in question the findings arrived at by Senior Member, Board of Revenue on 10.05.2012 in ROR No.1 of 2012 who proceeded to allow the revision filed before the Board of Revenue by the respondent and after setting aside order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) on 21.12.2011, restored the order dated 27.05.2009 passed by the District Collector, District Officer (Revenue) Faisalabad appointing the respondent herein as headman/Lambardar of Chak No.52/GB, Tehsil Samundri, District Faisalabad.

2. The post of Lambardar/headman of Chak No.52/GB, Tehsil Samundri, District Faisalabad fell vacant on account of death of Irshad Khan, the previous Lambardar. Applications from the eligible candidates were invited which attracted four persons namely Abdul Razzaq, Noshad Tazeem, Alia Tazeem and Asif Mehmood who applied for the said post. Tehsildar concerned, after initial proceedings recommended the name of Noshad Tazeem, the present respondent as a suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar and forwarded the case to the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), who with his recommendation which was in-line with the recommendations of Tehsildar forwarded the case to the District Collector, Faisalabad. During the proceedings before the District Collector, two candidates i.e. Abdul Razzaq and Alia Tazeem withdrew their candidatures in favour of present respondent Noshad Tazeem and the contest was left in between Noshad Tazeem and Asif Mehmood, present parties to the writ petition. The District Collector, District Officer (Revenue), vide order dated 27.05.2009 ordered the appointment of Noshad Tazeem, present respondent as Lambardar. Asif Mehmood appealed against order dated 27.05.2009 which was accepted by Additional Commissioner (Revenue) on 21.12.2011. The learned Member Board of Revenue in his revisional jurisdiction proceeded to set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) on 21.12.2011 and restored the earlier order dated 27.05.2009 passed by the District Collector appointing the respondent herein as Lambardar of the village.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the time when respondent applied for his appointment as Lambardar, he was minor in age and further that petitioner was better qualified than that of the respondent but only the hereditary claim of respondents has been given preference by appointing him as Lambardar. According to learned counsel, it is not an absolute rule that appointing a Lambardar, hereditary claim is to be preferred but the same can be a consideration in addition to others and if the case of the petitioner is examined keeping in view his ownership of the property and strength of the community his case will be on better footing as compared to respondent.

4. Responding to such contentions, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that not only father but grandfather and also great grandfather of the respondent had been the Lambardar of the village and in addition to such superior hereditary claim, the respondent has an edge over the petitioner for appointment as Lambardar for the reason that two candidates withdrew their candidatures in favour of the respondent. By placing on record a copy of provisional result card issued on 10.09.2015 by Allama Iqbal Open University, Faisalabad, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that during the period intervening the appointment of respondent as Lambardar and pendency of litigation over such question, the respondent has improved his education and has completed successfully the degree of Bachelor of Arts in general group.

5. Rule 17 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 provides the considerations to be kept in view for first appointment of headman/Lambardar which for the convenience of ready reference are reproduced herein below:-- (a) the hereditary claims of the candidate; (b) extent of property in the estate, if there are no sub-divisions of the estate, and in case there be subdivisions of the estate, the extent of the property in the sub-division for which appointment is to be made, possessed by the candidate; (c) services rendered to the Government by him or by his family; (d) his personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness; (e) the strength and importance of the community from which selection of a headman is to be made; (f) his ability to undergo training in Civil Defence in the case of headmen in Tehsils situated along the Border. Such above considerations clearly denote that no age limit has been provided to be kept in regard by making appointment of Lambardar. Further the educational qualification is also not a consideration for such purposes.

6. Although the question of minority of the respondent at the time of making application for appointment as Lambardar has been raised for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by the petitioner and by making reference to the case of "Ahmad Din v. Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and another" (1983 CLC 1385), learned counsel for the respondent has argued that when petitioner has failed to point out such alleged deficiency in eligibility of candidature of the respondent for appointment of Lambardar, he must not be allowed to raise such point for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi v. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan" (PLD 1999 Supreme Court 484) while analyzing different provisions of Land Revenue Act and Land Revenue Rules has held that the matter pertains to the entitlement or otherwise of females or minors to be appointed to the post of headman has in fact become non-existent with the changes that have evolved on the grounds.

7. From the matriculation certificate issued in favour of the respondent, a copy of which is available on the record, it revealed that his date of birth is admittedly 14.08.1990. Application for appointment of Lambardar was moved by the respondent on 03.05.2007 when according to learned counsel for the petitioner, he was only of the age of 16 years and 09 months and according to learned counsel, he was not eligible to be considered for appointment as Lambardar. Although such application by the respondent was moved on 03.05.2007, but for the first time, the respondent was appointed as headman/Lambardar on 27.05.2009 when the respondent attained the age of 19 years and became a major.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "M. Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Aslam and others" (2013 SCMR 363) has dealt with a similar matter and has held that where there was an impediment in the way of candidate at the date of applying for appointment, but he crossed the threshold or removed the hurdle with which he was earlier confronted while the matter was being processed and scrutinized and before final decision was taken by the competent forum, such candidate/applicant, notwithstanding the ineligibility on the date of applying, should be considered by the revenue authorities for the post/assignment as a valid candidate for the reason that during the intervening period, such candidate had already overcome the impediment pointed out by the other side. 9, Applying such principle in the present case, although minority can be attached with the respondent on 03.05.2007 when he, applied for the post of Lambardar but when on 27.05.2009, he was appointed as Lambardar, he had already crossed the hurdle of minority as by that time he attained the age of almost 19 years.

10. As noted earlier, the respondent has improved his education and now he is also a graduate with which educational qualification the petitioner claims having been equipped. Further this fact has not been denied by the petitioner that after his appointment as Lambardar w.e.f 27.05.2009, the respondent had been performing his duty without there being any complaint as to his working and now almost seven years have gone while the respondent is performing his such duty.

11. It is also settled proposition of law that for appointment of Lambardar, the recommendations of the original Revenue Officer must be given due weight. In the present case, Tehsildar and DDO (R), both the officers at original level of the revenue hierarchy have, recommended the name of respondent for the appointment of Lambardar. It is only the findings of Additional Commissioner, (Revenue) which were arrived at in favour of the petitioner. Such wrong committed by the Additional Commissioner, (Revenue) has been corrected by the Board of Revenue by giving valid and justified reasoning.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order which is not liable to be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court and resultantly while dismissing the present writ petition, the impugned order dated 10.05.2012 is upheld.

13. For what has been discussed above, instant writ petition is dismissed. ZC/A-113/L Petition dismissed.