ALLAH DITTA Versus NASIR AHMAD

Case has been called out. It was directed on the last hearing that the petitioner should be informed for a definite date. Information was duly sent to him. None has appeared on his behalf. The grievance in the petition is that the petitioner having been appointed as Lambardar by the Collector, the Commissioner set aside the order and instead of the petitioner appointed respondent No.2 as Lambardar. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, confirmed the order of the Commissioner; therefore, this writ petition.

2. I have gone through the petition and the orders passed by the Revenue authorities. The crux of the grievance made by the petitioner in tire petition, as it appears from para. (f) is that "the exercise of discretion by the Commissioner in favour of respondent No. 2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and based on imaginary reasons." On going through the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, I do not agree that the reasons are imaginary and/or the orders are arbitrary or unreasonable. It is, however, correct that the Commissioner has exercised his discretion in favour of respondent No. 2.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has cited Abdul Wahid v. The Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab and another (1971 S C M R 719), Dhari Khan v. M. Z. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan and another (P L D 1963 Lah. 583); unreported cases Writ Petition No. 1417 of 1971, decided on 29‑11‑71; L. P. A. No. 3 of 1972, decided on 22‑3‑72 and Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 145 of 1972, decided on 16‑6‑72, in support of his contention that the question of appointment of a Lambardar, in the circumstances as in the present case, is essentially of administrative character an as no right is involved, therefore, there Is no force in this petition.

4. I agree with the learned counsel for the respondent. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to observe in the last cited case as follows:‑--

This Court, in the case of Abdul Wahid v. The Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab and another 1971 S C M R 719 has taken the view that the office of Lambardar was essentially an administrative measure and no claim to that office could be laid as of right. The High Court was, therefore, right in. dismissing in limine the petitioner's writ petition and appeal.

Considering all the circumstances of the case, I do not see any force in this petition and the same is dismissed. There shall be: no order as to costs.

S. A. H. Petition dismissed.