2006 PLP 1730 (YLR)

SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.--Shah Muhammad Lambardar of Chak No.324/JB Tehsil and District Toba Tek Singh died and the vacancy fell vacant, for which applications were invited. Eight persons including the petitioner applied for the appointment as Lambardar, the statements in this respect were recorded, reports from field staff officers were received and Deputy District Officer (Revenue) submitted report dated 13-11-2002 wherein he recommended the petitioner for appointment. Petitioner was appointed vide order dated 1-10-2003 by District Officer Revenue/Collector. Respondent No.3 along with other candidates challenged the order of the appointment of the petitioner, in appeal, which was accepted on 10-2-2004, resultantly respondent No.3 was appointed as Lambardar in place of the (sic) 7-8-2004 refused to interfere in the impugned order of respondent No.2: The petitioner has called in question through the instant writ petition the orders dated 7-8-2004 and 10-2-2004.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the claim of respondent No.3 for appointment as Lambardar is hereditary claim, on the basis of rule of primogeniture. Adds that such claim has been declared repugnant to the Injunctions of Islamic in the case of "Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan" (PLD 1999 SC 484). It was argued that the Collector after getting report from the Field Staff Officers, considered the petitioner as a suitable candidate. The opinion of Collector cannot be brushed aside by respondent No.1, unless such opinion is perverse or without any lawful justification. He argued further that the Board of Revenue has not followed its own policy in this respect and referred to the judgments of the Board of Revenue in the cases of "Abdul Salama v. Muhammad Amir Khan Rajpoot" (PLD 1972 (Revenue) 16) and Haji Burhan v. Haji Ibrahim" (PLD 1974 Revenue 82). He has lastly contended that Respondent No.3 is an absentee and does not possess land in the area to meet the requirement of Zar-e-Bharat.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, fully supported the impugned decision and rebutted the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He referred to the voter list of the village to show that the respondent No.3 is a registered voter of the village although his name appears in the voter list of another village as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has referred to the National Identity Card of respondent No.3 and the receipts for the payment of Abiana which show the residence of respondent No.3 in Chak No.327/JB. He has lastly argued that instant writ petition is not maintainable as the appointment as Lambardar is not a vested right and the decision of Member Board of Revenue, even if assumed to be erroneous, does not call for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction by High Court. He in this respect placed reliance on the cases of "Abdul Ghafoor v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue" (1982 SCMR 202) "Sharf Din v. Qazi Abdul Jalil" (1986 SCMR 1368), "Muhammad Hanif v. Zulfiqar Ali" (2002 MLD 1844) and "Amir Latif v. Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue" (2005YLR 1913).

4. Heard. learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Respondent No.2 (Executive District Officer Revenue) in his order dated 10-2-2004 has taken into consideration the requirement of rule 17 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, while appointing respondent No.3 as Lambardar. He has not based his selection totally on the rule of primogeniture. He has taken into consideration other factors that he is Hafiz e-Quran, young man of thirty five, has no previous history of anti-social activities, A owns sufficient land to meet the requirement of Zar-e-Bharat and is an educated person to cope with the demands of the office of Lambardar. Respondent No.1 has upheld the decision through impugned order dated 7-8-2004 and while doing so he has held that petitioner is owner of IHATA in the Chak and has conceded frankly that his mother owns a house and a. shop in adjoining Chak No.326/JB. Respondent No.1 mother in the adjoining Chak does not make him an absentee.

6. I do not find any jurisdictional error of violation of statute or law in the orders impugned before me. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 have decided the matter after taking into consideration the record of the case, hearing of the parties and law on the subject. No appraisal of the evidence can be made in the writ jurisdiction.

7. For the foregoing the instant' writ petition has no merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. H.B.T./A-75/L Petition dismissed.