2010 PLP 2743 (YLR)

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.--The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that father of the petitioner was a permanent `Lambardar' of Chak No.203/J.B. Tehsil Chiniot District Jhang who died on 7-6-2006. On the death of headman, applications were invited to fill up the post of `Lambardar' by the District Officer Revenue, Jhang. In response to the applications, three candidates applied for the post of Lambardar, namely, Sultan Ahmad, the petitioner, Allah Ditta, respondent No.1 and one Asghar Ali. The District Officer Revenue appointed respondent No.1 as `Lambardar' vide order dated 19-9-2006. Against the appointment of respondent No.1, petitioner filed an appeal before the Executive District Officer Revenue, Jhang which was dismissed on 29-11-2006. The petitioner further assailed both the orders passed by the forums below in a revision petition which met the same fate and on 20-2-2008, the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore dismissed the revision petition. Again the petitioner filed a review petition which was also dismissed on 28-1-2009 by the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that all the four orders passed by the revenue hierarchy are against the facts and law and all the learned lower forums have not applied their judicial mind and they have ignored the important fact that petitioner is son of deceased `Lambardar' and on the basis of hereditary claim the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as `Lambardar'.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. Record shows that in response to the advertisement to fill up the vacant post of `Lambardar' three candidates applied for the vacant post. District Officer Revenue appointed respondent No.1 as `Lambardar' vide his order dated 19-9-2006. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal before the EDO(R), Jhang, then revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and ultimately review petition before the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore but all in vain and all the learned lower forums dismissed the appeal and petitions of the petitioner concurrently. The claim of the petitioner that under the condition of hereditary claim being son of deceased 'Lambardar', he be appointed as Lambardar has no force because rule of primogeniture has already been declared un-Islamic and against the injunctions of Islam by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled as Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi v. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1999 SC 484 wherein it has been held that heredity or hereditary claims to public offices have no room in the scheme of an Islamic dispensation. In point of fact, it has been the temptation to lean in favour of hereditary considerations, which has perverted the course of Islamic history and reduced the Ummah to its present plight. The limited recognition, therefore, to hereditary factors, pre-eminence as held being accorded to merit, is a peculiarity of the office of headman or Lamberdar in contemplation of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, and the rules framed thereunder. The reason is obvious namely, that such office is, in a sense, not a Government office as such but a link between the State and the landowners of a specific area. The other considerations of the Lamberdar only getting a percentage of the revenue from tax payers, no salary whatever and enjoying some land holdings in the Mauza also support this conclusion, merit though always remaining the primary factor. Nothing also turns on the headman qualifying as a bigger landowner of the area himself, because that, too, is a convenient but secondary factor as against which as well merit should prevail. All the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition were dealt precisely and in detail by the learned lower forums. There is concurrent finding of four Courts below against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality or jurisdictional error in the t impugned order. The petitioner has completely failed to show any genuine grievance to make out a case for interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. Resultantly, this writ petition fails, order accordingly. H.B.T./S-80/L Petition dismissed.