MUHAMMAD YOUNIS Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside an order of the Board of Revenue regarding the appointment of a Lambardar. The original Lambardar was removed for alienating his entire holding, leading to a contest for the vacancy between the petitioner and the son of the removed Lambardar. The Collector appointed the petitioner, whose appointment was initially reversed by the Commissioner, subsequently restored by the Board of Revenue, and finally set aside by the High Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that the High Court erred in interfering with a Lambardari dispute and misconstrued rule 19(2) of the relevant rules. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the questions raised regarding the scope of writ jurisdiction in Lambardari matters and the interpretation of the applicable rules.
- Can the High Court interfere in the exercise of writ jurisdiction with an appointment order regarding a Lambardar?
- How is rule 19(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 to be interpreted regarding the appointment of a new Lambardar in place of a removed landless Lambardar?
- Rule 19(2), West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules 1968
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.- -Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 28-10-1987 of the Lahore High Court; whereby in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, an order passed by the Board of Revenue in regard to the appointment of the petitioner as a Lambardar, was set aside.
2. One Sohanra was the Lumbardar. He was removed on account of alienation of his entire ,holding and thus having become landless. For the appointment of a new Lumbardar the contest was between the petitioner and respondent No.2 who is the son of the removed Lumbardar. The Collector appointed the petitioner. The appeal of respondent No.2 was accepted by the Commissioner and he was appointed as Lumbardar. The petitioner's revision before the Board of Revenue succeeded. The appointment of the petitioner made by the Collector was restored. The order of the Board of Revenue dated 27-7-1986 was then challenged by respondent No.2 before the High Court and the same having been set aside, leave to appeal has now been sought.
3. Learned counsel amongst others, has relying on Babu Khan v. Amanat Khan (1986 S C M R 1368) contended that subject-matte of contest between the parties being Lambardari, the High Court could not have interfered with in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. He has also contended that the learned Judge in the High Court erred in interpreting rule 19(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 in favour of respondent No.2. He has, in this behalf relied on Ghulam Hussain v. Ghulam Muhammad and another 197 SCMR 75.
4. It is stated by the office that leave to appeal has already been granted in C . P. No.235-P of 1985 on 5-11-1986 on grounds similar to those raised in this petition. We grant leave to appeal in this case also.
5. If possible, the appeals arising out of both the matters may be heard together.
6. This appeal shall be. made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if necessary
7. .
8. Security Rs.1,000.
9. The interim order passed by this Court on 21-11-1987 shall continue.
10. S. Q./M-298/S Leave granted.