' The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.11806 of 1996 against the D.C./Collector, Sahiwal, which was disposed of by Mr. Justice Munir Ahmad Mughal vide order dated 21-12-1998, with the direction to the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for the appointment of the petitioner as Lamberdar in Chak No.160/9-L Tehsil Chichawatni, District Sahiwal in accordance with law. The Collector did not comply with the direction of this Court, forcing the petitioner to file Crl. Org.
No.204-W of 1999. The learned Judge was pleased to direct District Collector, Sahiwal to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner for appointment as Lamberdar in Chak No.160/9-L, Tehsil Chichawatni, District Sahiwal.
' The District Collector, Sahiwal/respondent No.2 did not comply with the direction. He sent the matter ' to the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan. The Commissioner, Multan Division Multan vide his order dated 27-4-2000 declined the request of the petitioner. The petitioner filed ROR No.826 of 2001 before the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, which was accepted vide order dated 30-6-2003 setting aside the order dated 27-4-2000 passed by the Commissioner, Multan Division Multan and order dated 26-5-1999 of the District Collector, Sahiwal, remanded the case to the Executive District Officer, (Revenue), Sahiwal with the direction to consider to, the request of the petitioner.
2. That after remand of tine case, the Executive District Officer, (Revenue), Sahiwal dismissed the application of the petitioner vide his order dated 19-12-2003. The petitioner again filed Writ Petition No.358 of 2004 challenging the order dated 19-12-2003 of the Executive District Officer (Revenue).
Respondent No.1 was ordered to appear in person and also to file report and parawise comments.
Reader of respondent No.1 appeared in the Court, and stated that the order of the Member, Board of Revenue Punjab, will be complied with in its letter and spirit.IA Thereafter, again respondent No.1 vide his order dated 9-8-2004 refused' to appoint the petitioner as Lamberdar.
3. It is argued that despite the direction of the Court and statement made by representative of respondent No.1, the impugned order is totally against the direction of this Court, as well as that of learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab. The impugned order is result of mala fide and against the provisions of section 617 of Colony Manual, 1940. The finding of respondent No.1, that the petitioner is not a resident of Chak No.160/9-L Tehsil Chichawatni, District Sahiwal, is incorrect. It is argued that the revenue estate of Chak No.160/9-L Tehsil Chichawatni consist of 138 squares and only two Muslim Lamberdars and one Lamberdar of Christian Community are appointed, whereas, as per rules one Lamberdar is required to be appointed for every 20 squares in the village. The order of the Executive District Officer (Revenue) is against the rules and law. The three Lamberdars in the Chak were appointed before partition, whereas since then 60 squares of land was included in the revenue estate of the Chak, required appointment of an additional 'Lamberdar is need of the day.
4. The Executive District Officer (Revenue), Sahiwal also submitted report and parawise comments to the writ petition. The stand taken by the respondents is that; on the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the case of petitioner was referred to the Commissioner Multan Division Multan for creation of post of Lamberdar. However, the creation of post of Lamberdar was declined by the Commissioner, Multan Division Multan, vide his order dated 27-4-2000 for appointment of the petitioner as Lamberdar. Although the learned Member of Board of Revenue, Punjab vide order dated 20-6-2003 set aside the order of the Commissioner, Multan Division Multan and remanded the case to the Executive District Officer (Revenue); Sahiwal, with 'the direction to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Lamberdar. Yet the stand of the respondent remained the same that no post of Lamberdar is vacant or in existence, the appointment of the petitioner as Lamberdar does not arise. It is further stated that no one can apply for appointment as a right. The petitioner is owner of 10 Kanals of land and permanent resident of Multan. There are only three Syed families in the Chak, owner of 13 acres of land. Even if an additional post is created, then appointment could be made after inviting applications from the intending right holders and the appointment will be made on merits.
5. The writ petition is prematured. The petitioner should first seek his remedy by filing appeal before the Member, Board of Revenue against the order of the Executive District Officer (Revenue). The application of the petitioner was considered in compliance of the directions of the High Court and the Member,413oard of Revenue. Since there is no direction of the High Court or the Member, Board of Revenue to appoint the petitioner as Lamberdar.
6. I have heard the petitioner and gone through the report and parawise comments filed by the respondents. Admittedly the present writ petition, has been filed against the order dated 9-8-2004 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Sahiwal, whereas, the right of appeal is provided against the order of the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Sahiwal before the Member, Board of Revenue which remedy has not been availed by the petitioner. The objection raised by the respondents that without availing the remedy provided under the law, the writ petition before this Court is pre matured and the same deserved to be dismissed is not without force. The petitioner in person has not been able to meet this objection raised by the respondents. In this view of the matter without dilating on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall avail his remedy before the forum provided under the law against the order of respondent No.1, who shall decide the same after hearing the parties and the direction issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition.
' With this observation, this writ petition is disposed of.