2016 PLP 52 (CLCN)

MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.

Through his petition, the petitioner has impugned the validity of the orders dated 13.4.2010 and 17.8.2011 passed by E.D.O.(R), Khanewal and Member, (Judl.-II), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, respectively whereby the revision petition of Muhammad Arshad, respondent No.3 was allowed, which order in turn was upheld by the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.

2. The facts, in brief, are that upon the demise of Muhammad Yaqoob son of Muhammad Bakhsh, permanent Headman/Lambardar of Chak No.507/EB, Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari, this post fell vacant. District Officer (R) initiated the process to fill the slot. He called for the reports from the field staff. At the end of the day, he appointed Ghulam Nabi, the petitioner, herein a Headman/Lambardar of the said village vide order dated 20.1.2009. Feeling aggrieved, Muhammad Arshad, respondent No.3 herein filed a revision petition before E.D.O.(R), Vehari. However, due to a transfer order passed by Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore the same was finally heard and decided by Executive District Officer (R), Khanewal, who allowed the same vide order dated 13.4.2010. Now it was the turn of the petitioner herein to approach Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore to challenge the correctness of the aforesaid order dated 13.4.2010. Be that as it may, ROR No.876/10 filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 17.8.2011 passed by learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.

3. As stated above, the two orders-one passed by the Executive District Officer (R) Khanewal dated 13.4.2010 and the other dated 17.8.2011 passed by Board of Revenue, Punjab are the subject matter of the instant revision petition.

4. Ch. Muhammad Hussain Jehanian Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned orders have been passed in disregard of Rule 17 of W.P. Land Revenue Rules, 1968. He submits that a mere perusal thereof shows that they are arbitrary, capricious, whimsical and atrocious, to say the least. He goes on to argue that while setting aside the well-reasoned and well-argued order dated 20.1.2009 passed by District Officer (R), Vehari, Executive District Officer (R), Khanewal and Member Board of Revenue did not meet the reasoning given in the order dated 20.1.2009. He elaborates that unless the reasoning of the District Officer (R), Vehari was found to be perverse or fallacious or untenable, there was no warrant to interfere with the same.

5. On the other hand, Pir Ahmad Shah Khagga Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has supported the impugned orders. He made the argument that Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab being sitting at the apex of the revenue hierarchy was vested with complete and absolute discretion to appoint anybody as a Headman/Lambardar of the village. He further submits that when he found the qualifications of both the contestants-respondent No.3 and the petitioner-equal, he threw his weight behind respondent No.3. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner need not feel any heartburn. 6. 1t is noteworthy that Mr. Muhammad Javed Saeed Pirzada, Assistant Advocate General Punjab was critical of the approach adopted by Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, so he did not support the impugned orders. He put up the argument that both the impugned orders are liable to be stuck down while the order dated 20.1.2009 passed by District Officer (R), Vehari being logical, consistent and reasonable required to be restored.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and learned Law Officer, besides perusing the record annexed to the writ petition.

8. It would be advantageous to reproduce herein Rule 17 of W.P. Land Revenue Rules, 1968 for ready reference, which has a decisive bearing on the outcome of the controversy in issue: "(a) ........................... (b) extent of property in the estate, if there are no sub -divisions of the estate, and in case there be sub -divisions 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 Boarder."

9. Having gone through the record, I have no hesitation in holding that the order dated 20.1.2009 passed by District Officer (R), Vehari, whereby he ordered the appointment of the petitioner as Headman/Lambardar of Chak No.507/EB Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari was a speaking one. He assigned valid and cogent reasons in support of his order. It seems that while passing the order, he had not only in his mind Rule 17 of W.P. Land Revenue Rules, 1968 but he also took pains to evaluate the credentials and antecedents of the two contestants for village Headman/Lambardar. He took into consideration each and every aspect, which could have a bearing on the final outcome of the exercise carried out by him. Paragraph No.7 of the order dated 20.1.2009 passed by District Officer (R), Vehari is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "Arguments heard. Record perused. As per report of Wasil Baqi Nawis, Burewala, both the candidates deposited the amount of Dhal Bachhis previously delivered to them, in advance, as such they are not defaulters of any government dues. However, the amount of Rs.6907/- with regard to canal water has been deposited by the candidate Muhamamd Arshad into government treasury vide Bank Challan No.104 dated 29.09.2008 as such he remained defaulter of government dues for a period of about 20 years. Although recommendation of Revenue Field Staff is in favour of Muhamamd Arshad yet he is a litigator as he has filed suit against the Province of Punjab with regard to superdari of Lambardar Grant. So far as the cases registered against Ghulam Nabi are concerned, the Police declared him innocent during the investigation. It clearly shows that Muhammad Arshad, insidiously got registered false cases only to beat down the opponent candidate and to get the post of Lambardar. These acts do not reflect his good character and such type of deceptive person is not suitable for the post of a Lambardar. As regards the factor of proprietary land education is concerned, Ghulam Nabi is Matric and is owner of land measuring 161 Kanals 16 Marlas whereas Muhammad Arshad is under-Matric and is an owner of land measuring 77 Kanals 1 Marla. As such Ghulam Nabi has an edge over the opponent candidate with regard to the education and proprietary land. Comparatively, Ghulam Nabi, Retired Field Assistant, is considered a suitable person who. fulfils the basic conditions of Rule 17(e) of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968 i.e. ability and freedom for indebtedness. Therefore, Ghulam Nabi son of Shahab Din, caste Jat is hereby appointed as a permanent Lambardar of Chak No.507/EB, Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari."

10. In sharp contrast to the aforesaid order passed by D.O. (R) Vehari, the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore adopted a casual, perfunctory and laid-back approach. How he dealt with the question of appointment of village Headman/Lambardar is evident from the operative part of his order dated 17.8.2011, the relevant portion whereof reads as under: "After perusal of the record and impugned orders of both the lower Courts I find that both the parties are almost equal under the criteria laid down on the subject except experience and in this way, the respondent has more experience in Lambardari matter as is evident from the available record. As such, he has edge over the present petitioner. Therefore, the EDO (Revenue), Khanewal has rightly set aside the order of DO (Revenue)/Collector, Vehari dated 20.1.2009 vide his impugned order dated 13.4.2010. I find no justification to interfere in the impugned order which is based on facts and good reasons. The same is upheld. The revision petition is rejected accordingly."

11. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that while setting aside the well-reasoned order dated 20.1.2009 passed by D.O.(R), Khanewal, both E.D.O.(R), Khanewal and Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore were under an obligation to meet the reasoning given therein. But they did not advert to the same and found it convenient to pass orders at their whims, probably proceeding on the assumption that they have unbridled powers to pass any order they like. It seems that while passing such arbitrary orders, they forget that under Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, it is the inalienable right of every citizen to be treated in accordance with law. It goes without saying that if the law of the land confers discretion upon an authority, the same is to be exercised justly, honestly, equitably, based on sound judicial principles. And if the Courts of law arrived at the conclusion that the concerned authorities did not keep in view the objectives to be achieved by the Statute which confer discretion upon them, their arbitrary and whimsical orders would be stuck down.

12. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned orders dated 13.4.2010 and 17.8.2011 passed by Executive District Officer (Revenue), Khanewal and Member, (Judl.-II), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, respectively being unsustainable are hereby set aside, while the order dated 20.1.2009 passed by District Officer (Revenue), Vehari, is restored, by which Ghulam Nabi, the petitioner was appointed as Headman/Lambardar of Chak No.507/EB, Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari.

13. This petition is allowed in the above terms. HBT/G-34/L Petition allowed.