1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order - dated 14-10- 1978 passed by a Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing the Writ Petition (W. P. No. 4622 of 1978) of the petitioner, in limine.
2. This petition is not properly documented inasumch as neither any order passed by the Revenue Authorities nor even the order passed by the High Court in the earlier round of proceedings has been placed on the record. However, the background leading to the passing of the impugned order before us, as narrated in the writ petition before the High Court, is briefly as follows :- Five persons submitted applications to fill a post of lambardar in Chap No. 413 J. B. Tehsil Toba Tek Singh, District Faisalabad, The Collector appointed Murid Hussain (respondent No. 2 herein) on the grounds that he belonged to the majority community, was a Matriculate and owned 121 kanals 6 marlas of land, by his order dated 15-1-1970. The unsuccessful candidates filed four separate appeals against the aforesaid order of the Collector. The Commissioner accepted the appeal of Fazal Muhammad (respondent No. 1 before us) by his order dated 28-4-1970. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order Murid Hussain (respondent No. 2 before us) filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue and a learned Member of the Board accepted the revision petition by his order dated 18-5-1971 and restored his appointment. Fazal Muhammad (respondent No. 1) filed a review petition before the Board of Revenue, which was accepted vide order dated 26-6-1975, on the ground that Murid Hussain was disqualified on account of the provisions of rule 18(d) of the Land Revenue Rules, according to which a headman shall be dismissed when he has mortgaged his holding and has delivered possession of the holding to the mortgagee. According to the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Murid Hussain had mortgaged some of his land and parted with its possession. Murid Hussain challenged this order by a writ petition before the High Court (W. P. No. 1.765 of 1965) which was accepted by a learned Single Judge (Mr. Justice Gul Muhammad Khan) who set aside the order of the Board of Revenue passed in review and remanded the case back to the Member, Board of Revenue, presumably on the ground that the provision of rule 18(d) of the Land Revenue Rules required further consideration. The review petition filed by Fazal Muhammad (respondent No. 1) was ordered to be treated as still pending and it was directed that it may be decided in accordance with law. The matter ultimately came up for hearing before Mr. S. M. Nasim, Member, Board of Revenue, who, vide his order dated 22-6-1978, dismissed it with the result that the order in favour of Murid Hussain dated 18-5-1971 was revived and he was held to be holding the post of lambardar. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner (Muhammad Sharif) filed a writ petition before the High Court (W. P. No. 4622 of 1978), but the same was dismissed by the same learned Judge who had disposed of the earlier writ petition by his order dated 14-10-1978. It was held that the rule 18(d) of the Land Revenue Rules was not attracted because it pertained to the case of dismissal and that the Member, Board of Revenue, while dismissing the review petition of Fazal Muhammad (respondent No. 1 before us) was right in considering that the position obtaining at the time of the appointment had to be seen and not the position that emerged subsequently. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the above-mentioned order of the High Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has frankly conceded before us, that rule 18(d) of the Land Revenue Rules is pot concerned with the question of appointment, but relates to the matters of dismissal and, therefore, was not attracted.
4. Rule 18(d) is in the following terms "18. Dismissal of headmen.-(1) A headman shall be dismissed when -
(a) ........................
(b) ........................
(c) ........................
(d) he has mortgaged his holding and has delivered possession of the holding to the mortgagee ; provided that in special cases the Collector may, with the Commissioner's sanction, retain him in his office if he can furnish adequate security for the payment of the revenue he has to collect and for the due discharge of his duties ; or (e)------------------"
5. After having read it we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that rule 18
(1) (d) is not attracted in the circumstances of this case and that the order of the High Court is correct. There is no force in this petition which is accordingly hereby dismissed.