The petitioner through the instant writ petition has taken the exception to the order dated 16.05.2006 passed by respondent No. 1 in R.O.R. No. 13/11/2003.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of present writ petition are that after the death of Muhammad Ali son of Abdullah, permanent Lambardar of the village Hasna, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur, the District Officer (Revenue), Kasur on the recommendation of D.D.O.(R) appointed one Sher Khan son of Wazir Khan as permanent lambardar of the said village against the said vacant vacancy. One of the contestants Abdul Shakoor filed an appeal against, the said order before the E.D.O. (R), Kasur, which was dismissed vide his order dated 16.05.2003. The same was .Challenged through a revision petition by filling R.O.R. No. 1311-2003 before respondent No. 1, and the said respondent vide order dated 16.05.2006 while accepting the revision petition remanded the case to the District Officer (Revenue), Kasur for decision afresh, hence the instant writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No. 1 without application of judicious and independent mind has upset the decisions of respondents Nos. 2 and 3; further contended that the District Officer (Revenue), Kasur after obtaining the reports about the character of the petitioner from the local police as well as recommendation received from the D.D.O. (R) and Tehsildar concerned has rightly appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of Mauza Hasna; further argued that impugned order has been passed without appreciating the evidence and record' available before him. It is added that respondent No. 5-Abdul Shakoor is not a suitable candidate to be appointed as Lambardar of the village as he is not sident of that village and is also involved in a criminal case.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. While appointing permanent LambardarHeadman of the village the controversy of appointment shall be decided according to law 'after taking into consideration all' the reqUirements of Rule, 17 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 among other matters which to be read conjunctively.
Those are as under--
(i) The hereditary claims of the candidates;
(ii) The. Extent of property in the estate, if there are no sub-division, of the estate, and in case there be sub-divisions of the estate the extent of the property in the sub-division for which appointment is to be made, possessed by the candidate; (i.e) services rendered to the Government by him or 'by his family; his personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness; -his ability to undergo training in civil defence in the case or head-men in Tehsil situated along the Board.
6. It is a settled principle of law that appointment of a Lambardar of the village is discretion of the revenue C.L.R. functionaries, who appoint him after initiating a thorough proceedings, therefore, their choice should not ordinarily be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction unless there is a very serious irregularity, injustice or perverseness.' . 7 The other aspect of the case is that the writ would not lie against the judgment/order/decision passed by a Special Tribunal or Court of competent jurisdiction unless it is perverse, void and coram non judice as laid down in the cases of Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others (PLD 1974 S.C. 139), and Sub. Muhammad Asghar v. Mst. Safia Begum and another (PLD 1976 S.C. 435). Learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted has not been able to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders passed by the tribunals below without lawful authority and miserably failed to persuade the Court to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.
8. So far as the argument of the learned counsel qua the ability and character of respondent No. 5- Abdul Shakoor is concerned, it is disputed question of facts which cannot be gone. Into by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction as laid down in the cases of Benediet Souza v.
Karachi Building Control Authority and three others (1989 SCM R 918), Federation of Pakistan and two others v. Major (Retd.) Muhammad Sabir Khan (PLD 1991 S.C. 476), and Muhammad Younas Khan v. Government of N.W.F.P. Through Secretary and others (1 993 SCMR 618).
9. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned Member, Board of Revenue respondent No. 1 'while passing the impugned order directed the District Officer (Revenue), Kasur to initiate de novo proceedings calling fresh applicatiqns, including these three contenders and select a genuine person in accordance with law and in this way he also secured the right of the petitioner to contest against the said vacancy and if he found better/suitable candidate he may be selected.
10. For the foregoing reasons this writ petition being devoid of force is dismissed in limine. .