2025 PLP 1447 (CLC)

ZAHOOR HUSSAIN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III)

This court took cognizance of this case on the direction of Honorable Lahore High Court, Lahore in the above mentioned writ petition, wherein it was directed by the High Court that the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 02 (petitioner in the revision petition) shall deem to be pending before Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab who shall decide the same afresh. The revision petition was filed against the order dated 24.04.2012 passed by the Commissioner Faisalabad, whereby, he dismissed the appeal of present petitioner by upholding the order dated 10.08.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Toba Tek Singh.

2. Tersely facts of the case are that on demise of Sultan Ahmad lambardar, post of lambardar of Chak No. 380/JB Tehsil and District Toba Tek Singh fell vacant. Fresh applications were sought for appointment of new lambardar. The Tehsildar Toba Tek Singh scrutinized the antecedents of the candidates under rule 17(1) of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968 and submitted his report to the Assistant Commissioner Toba Tek Singh for further proceedings who after due process of law forwarded the matter to Deputy Commissioner Toba Tek Singh. The Deputy Commissioner after observation of legal and codal formalities, appointed Muhammad Shafiq as lambardar of the said Chak vide order dated 10.08.2011. Feeling aggrieved with this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Faisalabad who vide order dated 24.04.2012 dismissed the appeal of petitioner by upholding the order dated 10.08.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Revision petition was filed in the Board of Revenue, Punjab wherein, the then Member (Consolidation) vide order dated 12.06.2014 remanded the case to The District Collector Toba Tek Singh for decision afresh while setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner. The said order passed in revision petition was challenged in the Hon'ble Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 32257 / 2014. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 13.04.2021 remanded the case to the Member Board of Revenue, Punjab for rehearing on which the then learned Member (Judicial-VIII) vide order dated 14.06.2022 appointed the petitioner as lambardar of the said Chak. The order dated 14.06.2022 was again challenged before Hon'ble Lahore High Court through Writ Petition No. 62790/2022 who vide order dated 15.10.2024 while accepting the same remanded the case to learned Member Board of Revenue, Punjab to decide the same afresh, strictly on merits and in accordance with law.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while narrating the facts of the case argued that father of the petitioner was lambardar of Chak No. 380/JB who died on 21.02.2010 and the post of lambardar fell vacant; that fresh applications were called for appointment of new lambardar in said Chak, 18 applications were received; that the Tehsildar recommended the name of the petitioner for the post and the same was forwarded to Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Toba Tek Singh who after due process of law forwarded the same to District Collector; that the petitioner is the elder son of the deceased lambardar and has been working as Sarbarah lambardar in the life of his father since 08.02.1983; that the revenue department handed over the Dhal Baach to the petitioner being son of deceased lambardar; that the petitioner is the elder son of deceased lambardar and has hereditary claim in his favor secured 95 marks whereas respondent was given 65 marks but both the subordinate courts have ignored the heredity claim of the petitioner which is against the law; that the petitioner is matriculate pass and owner of land measuring 19K-17M, which is enough to meet Zar-e-Bhrat; that he is well mannered and quite suitable candidate for the appointment as Lambardar; that the respondent has succeeded in lodging FIRs against the petitioners with the connivance of revenue authorities just to defame the petitioner; that the respondent is not capable for appointment as lambardar as he is a practicing lawyer in District Court Toba Tek Singh which is at the distance of 10 kilometers from the Chak and is also residing in a rented house in New Garden Town at Toba Tek Singh; that he cannot be appointed as lambardar and that the respondent through his mother has illegally occupied a residential Ihata and the relatives of the respondent No. 1 are encroachers. To support his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on 2002 SCMR 1371, 2021 SCMR 1336, 1996 SCMR 1581, PLD 2013 Lahore 23, PLD 1959 (W.P) Revenue 1966, 2013 SCMR 1363, PLD 1999 S.C 484, 2009 MLD 855 and 2023 YLR 2594. In the end, he has prayed that he may appointed as lambardar of the said Chak as the respondent is not a suitable choice for the said post.

4. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondent (Muhammad Shafiq) submitted written arguments. He argued his case verbally too. He stated that the respondent was quite eligible for appointment as Lambardar; that both subordinate courts rightly appointed him Lambardar of the said Chak being suitable candidate; that respondent is owner of land measuring 27K-18M in the patti whereas the petitioner was owner of land measuring 19K-17M; that the reports of Tehsildar is on hereditary basis and on account of experience of petitioner being sarbarah lambardar which is against the facts and law because the petitioner has no experience and not remained as sarbarah lambardar, rather he prepared a bogus documents of sarbarah lambardar which is clear fraud; that the stance of petitioner regarding absence of the respondent in the said Chak has not been taken by the petitioner in the grounds of the revision petition so cannot be considered, whereas, respondent is the permanent resident of the said Chak which is evident from his CNIC, domicile and address of the respondent mentioned in the revision petition; that the same address of the respondent has been mentioned by the petitioner in another case filed by the petitioner in ROR No. 1454/2021 decided vide order dated 14.06.2022; that respondent remained chairman of Zakat Committee two times, Co-Chairman of School Council Committee for more than 14 years and still working as Member of Water Supply Committee; that he is a social worker, innovative farmer, helps the government in conduct of sports festivals and in the regard government of Punjab awarded a medal to him for his good work for village school and community; that the respondent is law graduate having better educational qualification and more landed property in the said Chak; that the educational qualification is quite relevant factor in these days, reliance placed on 2014 SCMR 164, 2003 YLR 1960; that the respondent has participated in many social activities for the welfare of the people of the locality; that he belongs to majority community and is more influential; that the respondent has got a certificate of Jadeed Zaraat that can help the farmer of the estate to adopt modern techniques of farming to enhance productivity; that the Deputy District Officer, Agriculture also granted a certificate of innovative farming to him; that preference could not be given mere on account of hereditary claim because in a case CPL No. 1363-L of 2009 august Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated 18.12.2012 held that preference shall not be given to any candidate of lambardar mere on the basis of hereditary claim; that the ruling cited in Writ Petition No. 11307/2010, PLD 1999 SC 484, 2003 YLR 1960, 2010 CLC 900, and Writ Petition No. 7093/2010 decided on 01.11.2017 must be considered while deciding the appointment or lambardar; that the petitioner misled the revenue functionaries and this court by presenting a bogus document showing himself as sarbarah lambardar which is evident from the copies of Naql Forms available in the case file; that the petitioner has encroached state land of an area measuring 15 Marlas in Killa No. 23 of Square No. 43 in the Chak; that an FIR No. 220 dated 17.05.2009 under Sections 3/6 Food Act at PS City Toba Tek Singh has been registered against the petitioner; that another FIR No. 358 dated 09-07-2021 under Section 379, P.P.C. has been registered at PS Sadar Toba Tek Singh for the theft of trees from the state land by the government officials on the direction of the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Toba Tek Singh and that the record of School Council was got tampered by the petitioner with the help of a teacher on the basis of that very tampering the bogus Notification No. 219 dated 19.11.2011 was issued and the allegations levelled against the petitioner was later on stood proved and legal action was proposed against petitioner. To support his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on PLD 1999 Supreme Court 484, Writ Petition No. 7093 of 2014, Civil Petition No. 1363-L of 2009 decided on 18.12.2012, 2010 CLC 1418 Lahore, 2014 SCMR 164, 1994 MLD 1480 Lahore, 2010 CLC 900 Lahore, 2003 YLR 1960 Lahore, 2008 CLC 1141 Lahore, PLD 1974 Rev. 82, 1992 CLC 1456 Lahore, 2013 CLC 667 Board of Revenue Punjab Lahore, 2004 YLR 2543 Lahore, 2010 CLC 1190 Board of Revenue Punjab, PLD 1959 W.P (Rev.) 96, 2005 CLC 1228, PLD 1966 W.P. (Rev.) 76, PLD 2010 Tr.C. Revenue 100, 1990 CLC 1983 Board of Revenue Punjab, 2001 CLC 1773, 2007 SCMR 1965, W.P. No. 26121 of 2011, Decided on 02-09-2010, 1999 MLD 2865 Board of Revenue Punjab, PLD 1963 W.P. (Rev.) 66, PLD 1966 W.P. (Rev.) 159, PLD 1966 W.P. (Rev.) 143 and PLD 1957 P.W. (Rev.)

52. In the end, he has prayed that being the most suitable candidate, he may be appointed lambardar of the said Chak.

5. I have carefully considered written / verbal arguments advanced by the counsels for the parties and have also gone through the record and previous orders available in the case file. The record shows that: The petitioner presented a document dated 08.02.1983 showing his appointment as sarbarah lambardar. He could not produce any certified copy of the same. The very credentials remained under question throughout the proceedings. Moreover, in constitution of the School Council Committee, the petitioner with the connivance of a teacher in the School got succeeded in inserting his name as member by tampering of the record. He is an old man of more than of 70 years of age with poor health and not in a position to perform duties of lambardar. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to call the petitioner in person in the court but he could not do so. He has given his own statement to the District Collector in a case for appointment of his son as his sarbarah lambardar showing his unavailability and inability to work as lambardar. The statement is reproduced as under: This very acceptance of poor health itself attracts the provision of Rule 18(2)(c) of Land Revenue Rules 1968 under Dismissal of headman. Record has revealed that the petitioner is an encroacher over the state land. He is involved in different cases and as a consequence, three FIRs have been registered against him. In one of the FIRs he has been acquitted whereas, rest of the two are still pending for decision.

6. In a similar case, the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in CPL No. 1363-L of 2009 vide order dated 18.12.2012 in Para-4 of the judgment has observed as under: "...The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner, being a practicing lawyer, was disqualified to be appointed as the lambardar as per Section 175 of the Rules, 1976 is devoid of force, for which it is expedient to reproduce the provisions:- 175. (1) An Advocate shall not join or carry on any other profession, business, service or vacation or shall not be an active partner or a salaried official or servant in or be subject to the terms and conditions of service of the Government, Semi- Government or autonomous body or any other organization or institution, public or private. (2) Any violation of sub-rule (1) by an Advocate shall entail consequences as provided in Rule 108 N. From the above, it is clear in unambiguous terms that the bar contemplated by the above rule pertains to certain professions, business and service etc. as are understood in their ordinary and technical/legal sense. However, the office of lambardar / Headman is neither a profession or business nor service etc. but it is an administrative post of its own kind by virtue whereof a suitable person in the Chak is saddled with certain duties and responsibilities attached to such post as are enumerated, inter alia, in Rule 22 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968. Therefore, it is absolutely misconceived to argue that a practicing lawyer cannot be appointed as a lambardar in view of noted rule." In Para-5, the august Supreme Court held as under: "...About the education edge to a candidate, this in the present day, it is quite a relevant factor, which when considered with other qualifications of a candidate and must be given due weightage; and when one looks at the comparative chart reproduced above, undoubtedly the credentials of the petitioner are more superior by all means than the respondent. This also includes his education. It may also be expedient to refer here that the learned High Court while passing the impugned order has given much importance to the hereditary claim of the respondent, by mentioning that his forefathers have also been lambardar, but the learned High Court remained oblivious of the legal position that rules of primogeniture and hereditary claim have been discarded by now and no preference to a candidate should alone be given on that account." The then Member (Consolidation) vide order dated 12.06.2014 remanded the case against the concurrent findings of the courts below. Instead of remanding the case to lower fora, he should himself have passed a speaking order. It just could have opened a second round of litigation from the very beginning. In the second round, the then Member (Judicial-VIII) vide order dated 14.06.2022 has erred in law as he considered the marks obtained the only criteria for appointment as Lambardar. The post of lambardar is no more, based on the rule of primogeniture and / or hereditary. But in this case, as per written assertion of the counsel of the petitioner, since 1926 i.e. nearing a century, the post is being held by a single family of the Patti. The counsel for the petitioner presented 09 case laws in support of his arguments. Similarly, the counsel for the respondent presented 28 case laws in support of his arguments. The case laws presented by the Respondent's counsel are comparatively more relevant and supportive to his cause in this case. The appointment of lambardar is essentially an administrative matter and there is no vested right of any person to lay claim to this effect. Therefore, it is left to the revenue functionaries to appoint the most suitable person as lambardar. The Choice of the District Collector should be given preference unless it is perverse. The duties of headman includes the collection of land revenue and other sums recoverable as arrears of land revenue, implementation of orders received from the Collector, furnishing of the information or to assist the officers of the Government and revenue field staff in discharging of their duties. The nature of these duties requires that the lambardar should be a person having social and human relationship with the population of the said village. The lambardar should also be a man of character. In the instant case, the respondent is the choice of the District Collector and the Commissioner. He is more educated and owns more landed property than the petitioner. He is quite fit and mature person of 51-years old. He is permanent resident of said village which is evident from his CNIC, domicile, voter list. He is an active social worker and has been working as member as head of different local government committees.

7. In view of what has been discussed / stated at Paras 05 and 06 above, the well-reasoned orders dated 10.08.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Toba Tek Singh, and 24.04.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Faisalabad are upheld. Present revision petition having no force of law and merits is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to record room after its due completions. MQ/3/Rev Revision dismissed.