MANZOOR AHMAD Versus MUHAMMAD MUNIR

ORDER

1. ANWRUL HAQ, C. J‑ This petition seeks leave to appeal against an order made by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court on the 19th of April 1980, by which a constitution petition seeking interference of the High Court in the matter of the appointment of the petitioner as a Lambardar of Chak No. 65‑JB, in Tehsil and District Faisalabad, was dismissed in limine.

2. By an order made on the 22nd of August 1978, the Collector of the District appointed respondent Muhammad Munir as the Lambardar of the village. On the petitioner's appeal, the Commissioner remanded the case to the Collector for re‑consideration, whereupon the Collector once again appointed the respondent by his order dated the 6th of March 1979. The petitioner filed another appeal, which was allowed by the Commissioner by his order dated the Ist of July 1979, and the petitioner was appointed as a Lambardar in place of the respondent.

3. The respondent thereupon filed a further appeal which was accepted by a learned Member of the Board of Revenue by his order dated the 31st of March 1980, with the result that the appointment of the respon dent as Lambardar was restored. The petitioner challenged this order of the Board of Revenue by filing a writ petition in the High Court, which was, however, summarily dismissed on the 19th of April 1980.

4. Leave to appeal is sought mainly on the ground that the further appeal filed by the respondent before the Member, Board of Revenue, was not competent, as no question of law arose in this case as required under section 161 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the main dispute before the Member, Board of Revenue, revolved around a question of fact, namely, whether respondent resided in the village in question or whether he resided in Faisalabad Town, and this was not a question amenable to further appeal in terms of the relevant provisions of the law. It is contended that in these circumstances, the appellate order made by the learned Member, bard of Revenue, was without lawful authority, and the High Court should have declared it as much.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, we have formed the view that there is no merit in these submissions. It is true that the main question agitated before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, by the respondent Muhammad Munir was that the learned Commissioner, acting in appeal, had erroneously found that he was not residing in the Chak. This finding of the learned Commissioner was set aside by the Member, Board of Revenue, on the ground that it was based only on the impression of the Commissioner that the appellant was an absentee land owner. In the body of his order dated the 31st March 1980, the learned Member, Board of Revenue, has observed that there was evidence on the record to establish that the respondent was residing in the Chak, but apparently this evidence had been ignored by the learned Commissioner in giving a finding to the contrary. It is well settled that if material evidence is ignored in coming to a finding of fact, then it amounts to an error of law. Such being the case, it was open to the learned Member, Board of Revenue, to interfere in the matter by way of further appeal.

6. As a result, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

7. Petition dismissed.