GHULAM AHMAD vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of a Lambardar, a decision previously finalized by the Board of Revenue. The core legal question was whether a writ petition is maintainable to challenge the appointment of a Lambardar, given established precedents. The Supreme Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable, consistent with a long line of established case law affirming that such administrative appointments in Lambardari cases are not subject to judicial review under writ jurisdiction. The Court refused leave to appeal, finding no justification for interference. However, the Court observed that while the appointment process remains outside the scope of writ jurisdiction, it is appropriate for the Board of Revenue and relevant authorities to remove remnants of customary law considerations from their rules and legal instruments, ensuring they align with modern legal standards, particularly those regarding Shariat-based principles.
- Is a writ petition maintainable against an order of the Board of Revenue regarding the appointment of a Lambardar?
- Should considerations of customary law be removed from the rules and legal instruments governing the appointment of a Lambardar?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought, against the dismissal by the High Court, of a Writ Petition whereby a Lambardari case concluded by the Board of Revenue, was sought to be re-opened by the petitioner.
2. ' It was dismissed by making reference to the case-law including Abdul Ghafoor v. The Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue and another 1982 SCM R 202 as also the following three cases:--
(1) Muhammad Warrayam v. Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 3 others 1972 SCM R 354.
(2) Muhammad Shafi v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others 1972 SCM R 253.
(3) Abdul Wahid v. The Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and another 1971 SCM R 719.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner, to be fair to him, also cited Sharaf Din v. Qazi Abdul Jalil and another 1986 SCM R 1368 wherein the same view with regard to the competency of Writ Petition in Lambardari case was affirmed. The case-law is against the petitioner.
4. ' However, learned counsel while accepting this position again tried to argue that on the one hand there was contravention of statutory rules and on the other the considerations relatable to customary law weighed with the authorities concerned. This, as argued, according to decisions on the Shariat side, is no more applicable.
5. ' These submissions notwithstanding the fact remains that the question raised before the .High Court related to the appointment of a Lambardar regarding which there is no possibility of making this as exception in so far as the view already held about the maintainability of a writ petition, is concerned. It is, however, kept open (and appropriate) for the Board of Revenue and the other authorities, to remove the remnants of the consideration's relatable to customary law and legal practices from their directions, rules and other legal instruments. With these observations we having found no justification for interference, leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused.
Cited by 5 cases
- Abdul Majeed Khan vs Senior Member Board of Revenue, Punjab and 4 2007 C.L.R. 59
- ABDUL MAJEED KHAN vs SENIOR MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 4 others 2006 PLJ Lahore 1223
- ABDUL MAJEED KHAN vs SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 4 otherss 2006 YLR 2594
- NOOR MUHAMMAD, LAMBARDAR vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others 2003 SCMR 708
- MUHAMMAD ALT vs MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ and others 1992 CLC 1456