MUHAMMAD ILYA Versus FAZAL HUSSAIN

The petitioner and respondent No. 1 are brothers inter se. On the death of their father, who was a Lambardar, these two brothers along with five others were candidates for the office of Lambardar. The Collector appointed the petitioner but on appeal the Commissioner set aside the Collector's order and appointed respondent No. 1 as Lambardar. The Board of Revenue upheld the Commissioner's order. Hence this writ petition.

2. The writ petition was admitted to examine why in spite of a clear ruling given in Badar Din v. Sardar Ali (P L D 1960 Rev. 77), against an old and incapacitated person being appointed Lambardar, the Revenue authorities thought it fit to appoint respondent No. 1 who is also said to be an old man with poor eyesight and failing health.

But the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has rightly pointed out that the reported case has no bearing on the question of succession to the office of Lambardari. It governs only a case of fresh appointment.

3. The Revenue authorities concerned have judiciously decided the question of succession to the deceased Lambardar keeping in view the rule of primogeniture. Therefore, neither the order of the Board of Revenue whether passed in review or revision nor that of the Commissioner can be] said to be without lawful authority or lacking in legal effect as no defect in the jurisdiction of either has been pointed out.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued the case only on the relative merits of petitioner and respondent No. 1. Those arguments can be of no B avail before this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution as in the exercise of that jurisdiction this Court neither sits in appeal nor in revision.

4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.

???? s. Q. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accordingly dismissed.