2016 PLP 669 (CLC)

WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III).

This revision petition has been filed against order dated 16.11.2012 passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, whereby appeal of present petitioner was dismissed.

2. Arguments heard and record perused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is resident of Chak No.113/10-R who submitted an application to learned Assistant Commissioner Jahanian, for appointment of Chowkidar which was rejected without hearing contention of the petitioner. Then the petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, which was dismissed. Both learned lower courts totally ignored the law on the subject. Before proceeding further in the matter of appointment of Chowkidar, mushtri munadi was essential, which was not made. Lastly, it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that he is real nephew of the ex-Chowkidar, Muhammad Ibrahim. He has been living with him for the last so many years. Muhammad Ibrahim has no male child. Respondent No.2 has been performing duties of Chowkidar to the entire satisfaction of the inhabitants of the said chak. The order dated 16.11.2012 was passed by learned lower court after hearing contention of the parties. The respondent has been appointed as Chowkidar being the most suitable candidate than the petitioner.

5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record available in the case file including the impugned orders. Brief of the matter is that the petitioner and respondent submitted applications for appointment of Chowkidar of Chak No.113/10-R. Muhammad Ibrahim, present chowkidar is unable to perform duties of Chowkidar due to ill health. The Assistant Commissioner, Jahanian after observation of codal formalities, appointed the respondent No.2 as Chowkidar of the said chak vide his order dated 02.07.2011. The operative part of the order reads as under:-

6. Feeling aggrieved by the order, Abdul Sattar, the present petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.11.2012. The operative part of the order is as under:--

7. During proceedings, it appeared that appointment of chowkidar is made under instruction of the Govt. of the Punjab, Home Department circulated vide letter No.HP-1/1-2/87, dated 23.11.1993, the relevant part of the notification is reproduced as under:-

1. The appointing Authority (DC/AC) is also competent to dismiss the Chowkidars.

2. The remedy in respect of an order of appointment, removal/ dismissal is writ petition.

3. The remedy in the case of an appeal or revision by an interested person against an order of fresh appointment is also writ petition.

4. Commissioner is not the competent authority to entertain appeals against the orders of DC/AC passed under the rules."

08. From the above, it becomes clear that the appointment of chowkidar is not made under Land Revenue Act, 1967. The remedy against any such order is writ petition. The competency of Deputy Commissioner / DCO and order of Deputy Commissioner is final order. So, this court is not competent to adjudicate into the matter. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed being incompetent. HBT/6/Rev.