MUHAMMAD AYUB Versus GULAB KHAN

ORDER

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- Mst. Naseer Akhtar wife of the petitioner was Lumberdar of the Revenue Estate Musa Kahut. On her death a file for appointment of Lumberdar was initiated. Several persons filed applications. However, ultimately only petitioner and respondent No.1 remained in the field. After completion of formalities the matter was put up before the District Collector, Chakwal, who vide his order, dated 7-2-2003 appointed respondent No.1 as Lumberdar. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by E.D.O. (R), Chakwal, on 17-3-2003. While a revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by respondent No.2 on 14-10-2004.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since it was late wife of the petitioner who was holding said office, he was entitled to be appointed Lumberdar, as he had a hereditary claim and was otherwise better than his opponent. Respondent No.1 put in appearance in response to pre-admission notice prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

3. I have gone through copies of the records. The Collector found that respondent No.1 was more suitable and his opinion was affirmed by the Commissioner and ultimately by the Board of Revenue. It is settled law that in the matter of appointment of Lumberdar the opinion of the Collector has to be given weight unless until it is shown to be perverse. No. such material is available on record to hold the impugned orders to be perverse.

4. Coming to the said contention of the learned counsel, the date of death of the said lady is not present anywhere in this record, including the contents of this writ petition and as such it will not be possible to Judge this case on the touchstone of the case Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi v. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1999 SC 484. However, upon reading of relevant Rules the said claim of the petitioner is not tenable. Hereditary claim is a relevant consideration in the matter of first appointment to be made under Rule 17 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968. There is no denial that this is case of appointment of successor and as such Rule 19 of the said Rules would be applicable, since it is nobody's case that the estate is owned chiefly or altogether by Government.

Sub-Rule (2) of the said Rule 19 will apply and the claim of collateral will be admitted only if the claimant is descendant in the main line of the paternal great grandfather of the last incumbent. Otherwise claim of the nearest eligible heir on the rule of primogeniture is to be given weight. Only claim of the petitioner is that he is husband of the late Lumberdar lady. Obviously it does not fall under the said sub-rule (2) of Rule 19. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

H.B.T./M-476/L Petition dismissed.