BASHIR AHMED Versus MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE

ORDER

MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.--- Facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition are to the effect that one Kalay Khan son of Ferore Din, Lumberdar of Village Chak Khoja Tehsil Sialkot has died and the office of headman/Lumberdar fell vacant. The Tehsildar invited applications for appointment of permanent Lumberdar through proclamation. Bashir Ahmad son of Shukar Din present petitioner and respondent No.3 Rafique Ahmad son of Kalay Khan applied for appointment of Lumberdar and the District Officer Revenue, Sialkot vide his order, dated 19-10-2004 appointed the petitioner as permanent Lumberdar of the village. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before the Executive District Officer Revenue, Sialkot, who vide his order, dated 3-2-2005 accepted the appeal, set aside the order of the Collector and appointed respondent No.3 Lumberdar of the village Chak Khoja in place of Kalay Khan deceased. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision petition, which was heard by Member Judicial-I, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and vide order, dated 18-7-2006 dismissed the same maintained the order of the Executive District Officer, Revenue, Sialkot.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is owner of 11 Acres, 5 Marlas of land while the respondent No.3 is owner of 7 Kanals, 6 Marlas of land. Further contends that the petitioner is the senior citizen, an experienced and responsible person while respondent No.3 is non-resident of the village and is entitled to be appointed as Lumberedar having no land qua respondent No.3 in the Revenue Estate concerned.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. The Lumberdar of the Village Kalay Khan father of respondent No.3 Rafiq Ahmad died and the Additional Commissioner as well as the M.B.R. appointed his son as permanent Lumberdar. Rule 19 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 provided considerations for appointment of successor. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 19 is reproduced as under:--

"In an estate or subdivision thereof, owned chiefly or altogether by Government, successor to the office of headman shall be selected, with due regard to all the considerations, other than hereditary claims, stated in rule 17."

The successor Lumberdar was to be appointed according to the rules of "primogeniture". This rule has been declared contrary to the Injunctions of Islam by the superior Courts and no more attracted to the appointment of successor Lumberdar. Rule 17 of these rules provided the considerations for appointment of a headman which are as under:

(a) the hereditary claims of the candidate;

(b) extent of property in the estate, if there are no sub-divisions of the estate, and in case there be sub-divisions of the estate, the extent of the property in the sub-division for which appointment is to be made, possessed by the candidate;

(c) service rendered to the Government by him or by his family;

(d) his personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness;

(e) the strength and importance of the community from which selection of a headman is to be made;

(f) his ability to undergo training in Civil Defence in the case of headmen in Tehsils situated along the Border."

5. It would mean that while appointing a Lumberdar the competent authority will take into consideration all the above mentioned considerations and appoint a suitable person as Lumberdar. The Executive District Officer Revenue while appointing respondent No.3 as Lumberdar observed that the appellant is real son of the deceased Lumberdar and is permanent resident of Village Chak Khoja and found that the respondent No.3 is suitable candidate for the vacant post. The order of E.D.O.R. Sialkot has been affirmed by the M.B.R. The respondent No.3 has been working as Sarbarah Lumberdar during the life time of his deceased father. There is concurrent findings of higher revenue hierarchy in favbur of respondent No.3. The appointment of a Lumberdar can only be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction if there had been any jurisdictional error. The selection of Lumberdar is the exclusive responsibility of Revenue Officer with the Board of Revenue at the apex.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error made by respondents Nos.1 and 2 in appointing respondent No.3 as Lumberdar. He was found unanimously suitable candidate for the appointment as permanent Lumberdar, which could not be set at naught without lawful justification. In this context reliance can be placed to the cases of Patch Masih v. Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore 1996 SCMR 377,1 Haji Noorwar Jan v. Senior Member, Board of Revenue, N.-W.F.P. Peshawar (sic) PLD SC 531; Abdul Karim v. Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab and 2 others 1993 MLD 1628.

7. The other aspect of the case is that the impugned order has been passed by a Special Tribunal/Revenue hierarchy competent to adjudicate upon the matter and High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction would not sit as a Court of appeal against the judgments passed by a Special Tribunal or the Court having the exclusive jurisdiction. Reliance in this context can be placed to the cases of Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar and others PLD 1974 SC 139 and Subedar Muhammad Asghar v. Safia Begum PLD 1976 SC 435.

8. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merits in this writ petition, which is dismissed in limine .

F.B./B-42/L Petition dismissed.