Hereditary claim

2023 CLC 825 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Rr.17(1) & 36Village headmanAppointmentHereditary claimAdditional marks

Appellant was aggrieved of additional 15 marks awarded to respondent towards credentials and eligibility criteria, for having hereditary claim in terms of R.17(1)(a) of Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968

Validity

Purpose of legislature, while delegating powers in S. 36 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, was to make rules vis-à-vis appointment of village headman to create a link for discharge of duties by revenue authorities and not to create any vested rights amongst Citizens or villagers to be appointed as a headman

Such appointment was essentially an administrative function, which vested exclusively in the domain of revenue authorities, who by virtue of experience and training were in the better position to make suitable choice than the Courts having general jurisdiction

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Single Judge of High Court as the same was based on correct interpretation of law

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2022 MLD 488 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

R.17Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionHeadman (Lumbardar), appointment ofHereditary claimSubstitution of findingsRespondent was appointed as headman (Lumbardar) after death of his real uncleValidityNumber of factors existed which were relevant for appointment of a headman

Hereditary claim of candidates was one of those factors according to which 30 marks were awarded to a candidate falling in first blood

Respondent was nephew of deceased headman and that was the reason he was recommended by Authority concerned to be appointed as village headman on the basis of various preferential reasons including hereditary claim

High Court while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction could not substitute its findings in order to undertake an exercise for evaluating available material to determine suitability of candidates

Competent authorities in revenue hierarchy had already considered merits of petitioner and respondent and after analyzing all pros and cons decided to appoint respondent as village headman instead of petitioner

Order of lower revenue hierarchy was questioned by petitioner up to revisional forum and then a review was filed but he failed to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in such orders

High Court declined to interfere in appointment of respondent as village headman as there were concurrent findings of revenue hierarchy and the same were based on proper appraisal of relevant material

Constitutional jurisdiction could only be exercised if it appeared the Court that there was some patent illegality or jurisdictional defect in the order assailed

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2012 YLR 1875 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

R.17West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957), S.8Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionLumberdar, appointment ofReview jurisdiction of Board of RevenueScopeHereditary claim

Appointment of petitioner as Lumberdar was set aside by Board of Revenue in exercise of review powers under section 8 of West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957

Validity

Review by Board of Revenue under the provision of section 8 of West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, was not at any cost amounted to an appeal

Board of Revenue reviewing any order was not permitted to sit in judgment on its own order or that of a predecessor-in-office, particularly when all grounds taken in review stood already agitated upon, in order under review

Board of Revenue had no option to give findings on those grounds afresh without first establishing whether there was any apparent mistake or error in the order sought to be reviewed

Petitioner was not only appointed on consideration of his hereditary claim, but other matters, which were to be considered in view of Rule 17 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, were also taken into consideration by revenue authorities

Appointment of petitioner could not be termed as illegal or ultra vires

Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction and exercised a jurisdiction, which was in fact not vested in it while passing order in question, accepting the review

Order passed by Board of Revenue in exercise of review jurisdiction was set aside, restoring earlier orders passed by revenue authorities, appointing petitioner as Lumberdar

Petition was allowed in circumstances.