P L D 1984 Peshawar 18 (PLP)

ABDUL KHALIQ KHAN, J.‑Through this Constitutional Petition, Khawaja Muhammad, the petitioner has called in question the order of the Senior Member Board of Revenue, dated 7‑4‑1983, on the ground that it is illegal, without jurisdiction and lawful authority.

2. The facts relevant to the disposal of the petition are that Umar Khan (the respondent) is Lambardar of village Warasta, Tehsil Hangu. Vide letter No. 2274;11, dated 27‑9‑1977, the D. S. P. Hangu brought it to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner (Hangu) that the said Lambardar was not helping the local police in the `service of summons and warrants and other official work' therefore, in the interest of police and Government he may be removed and the petitioner appointed in his place as Lambardar of the village.

3. After enquiry at the lower level, report was submitted for removal of Umar Khan and appointment of Khawaja Muhammad in his place. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner, Kohat passed a brief order on 3‑5‑1979 which reads :‑ "the recommendations of A. C., Hangu are approved." Umar Khan aggrieved by the said order filed a Review Petition which, how ever, did not find favour with the District Collector and was rejected on 9‑9‑1979. Umar Khan had also filed on 29‑5‑1979 an appeal against the order of the Collector. This appeal was dismissed on 2‑5‑1982. Thereafter, the mentioned Umar Khan filed a revision petition in the Revenue Board which was heard by the Senior Member. It was accepted vide order dated 7th of April, 1983, and the orders of the lower forum referred to above; were set aside. It was held that :‑ From the perusal of the impugned order, dated 3‑5‑1979 of the Collector, Kohat it transpires that the learned Court passed a cryptic order, without applying his mind to the important issue of dismissal of a Lambardar, which, in consequence, deprived the decendents of the Lambardar of their ancestral Lambardari. That the petitioner had not been heard and had not been afforded to cross‑examine D. S. P. Hangu, who made the allegation regarding his non‑co‑operation with the police. Besides, the respondent had not been shown to own any landed property in village Warasta. Reference to Tehsildar, Hangu's report, dated 16‑11‑1976, showed that it did not contain any reference to mis appropriation of Government money by the petitioner. The learned Additional Commissioner should have satisfied himself with regard to the requirements of the law, which he obviously failed to do. In the present case, there has been a miscarriage of justice and as such, I accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned orders and order immediate reinstatement of the petitioner as Lambardar, Warasta."

4. Khawaja Muhammad, who lost the job, in consequence of the said order, has filed the present petition, challenging the validity of the order on the grounds, (a) that the Senior Member of the Board of Revenue has indulged in misreading of the record and (b) that no appeal was competent against the order of review, therefore, the orders passed in connection with the appeal against the review by the Additional Commissioner and sub sequently that by the Member Board of Revenue are illegal and ineffective against the right of the petitioner.

5. We heard Mr. Tariq Jamal, Advocate for the petitioner and perused the record made available to us. We are of the view that there is no force in the petition inasmuch as no evidence has been made available on the file to lend support to the contention of the learned counsel, in respect of the plea of misreading of evidence. Similarly there is no substance in the other contention. The appeal in question was not filed against the order of dis missal of review but that of the removal of the respondent from the post of Lambardar by the Collector.

6. It is to be noted that it is wholly wrong to consider that the High Court is necessarily to interfere with the decision of a Court or Tribunal of inferior jurisdiction, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, merely because in its opinion the decision is wrong. It has been observed in P.L D 19 1 4 S C 139, that : "In that case, it would make the High Court's jurisdiction indistinguish able‑from that exercisable in a full‑fledged appeal which plainly is not the contention of the constitution‑maker. When there is jurisdiction to decide it rightly or wrongly and that the fact that the decision is incorrect does not render the decision without jurisdiction." In the circumstances, when no illegality or even irregularity was pointed out in the proceedings which resulted in reinstatement of the respondent No. 2 as Lambardar by the respondent No. 1, we see no reason to interfere with the final order of the Member, Board of Revenue.

7. Further, we are supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in Muhammad Warryam's case (1972 S C M R 354) in taking the view that the question about the selection of Lambardar was entirely within the discretion of the Revenue authorities and the High Court would not be justified in interfering with that decision in its Constitutional jurisdiction. We will, therefore, order dismissal of the petition in limine. In view of it we deem no necessity to consider Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 339 and 264 of 1983. M. A, K. Petition dismissed.