1994 PLP 1882 (MLD)

This Constitutional petition is directed against the order, dated 5-12-1993 of the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner Muhammad Shafi and maintaining the appointment of Syed Mushtaq Hussain as Lambardar of the village in question.

2. Briefly stated that on the death of Muhammad Hussain Shah, Lambardar of village Farooqabad the case of appointment of new Lambardar was initiated and the petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by order, dated 19-9-1981 of the Collector, Sheikhupura. This order in favour of the petitioner however, was set aside by the learned Commissioner vide his order, dated 25.2-1984 at the instance of one Muhammad Ashfaq son of the deceased Lambardar and after remand the Collector vide his order, dated 24-2-1990 appointed Syed Mushtaq Hussain one of the sons of the deceased Muhammad b Hussain. Against this, the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was rejected Y the learned Commissioner vide his order, dated 17-3-1992.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who vehemently argued that as Muhammad Ashfaq elder son of the deceased Lambardar was not appointed, there was no justification to appoint respondent Mushtaq Hussain the second son of the deceased Lambardar. In that event the learned counsel submits that the petitioner was the only person entitled to the appointment of the post of Lambardar.

4. After hearing the learned counsel I am of the opinion that there is no force in the plea of the learned counsel. Admittedly, it is a case of hereditary claim and any one of the sons of the deceased Lambardar could be appointed in the vacancy either Muhammad Ashfaq or Mushtaq Hussain. Muhammad Ashfaq has no grievance against the appointment of his brother Mushtaq, Hussain, admittedly the son of the deceased Lambardar. After the remand, all the three Courts namely, the Collector, Additional Commissioner and the Member, Board of Revenue held the appointment in favour of the respondent and no case is made out to interfere in the impugned orders.

5. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel on Ghulam Hussain v. Ghulam Muhammad and another 1976 SCMR 75 to contend that rule 19 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 regarding hereditary claim is merely directory and provide guideline for the choice of successor Lambardar and that the same does not confer any right. The entire law, including the precedent case, regarding the appointment of Lambardar under rule 19 of the aforementioned rules has been discussed in Haji Noorwar Jan v. Senior Member, Board of Revenue, N.-W.F.P. Peshawar and 4 others PLD 1991 SC 531 and it has been held that the selection of the Lambardar is the executive responsibility of the Revenue Officers and the Board of Revenue is at the apex. In this particular case all the three Courts have appointed the respondent as Lambardar in place of his deceased father and no illegality or jurisdictional defect is pointed out warranting interference in the impugned order. Resultantly, there is no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-1593/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.