' SYED ZULFIQAR ALI BOKHARI, J.---Through this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 24-7-2007 passed by Member (Judicial-I) Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore through which he dismissed ROR No,1944 of 2006 filed by the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case stated by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner was appointed as Sarbarah Lumberdar by the revenue authorities on 4-5-1998 after cancelling appointment of respondent No, 2 as Sarbarah Lumberdar. The petitioner worked as such till 24-5- 2006. In the meanwhile on 22-4-2003, Charagh Din permanent Lumberdar died. The District Officer (Revenue) directed for appointment of permanent Lumberdar of Chak No,146 10/R District Jahanian, District Khanewal. The applications were invited by Tehsildar, Jahanian and twenty nine persons applied for the post of permanent Lumberdar out of which four candidates appeared before the District Officer (Revenue) to compete the process of appointment of Lumberdar. One of the four candidates namely M. Inayat Gill absented himself from the proceedings while the petitioner and respondents Nos.2 and 3 left to contest the job. After getting report from the field staff Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Jahanian recommended name of respondent No,3 Muhammad Hussain for permanent Lumberdar. District Officer (Revenue), respondent No,5 after hearing the parties appointed respondent No,3 as permanent Lumberdar of above-said village vide his order dated 24-5-2006. The petitioner and respondent No,2 filed separate appeals before EDO(R) who after hearing the parties allowed the appeal filed by respondent No,2 and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner and respondent No,3 filed ROR No,1944 .Of 2006 and 1370 of 2006 before Member, Board of Revenue which was disposed of by respondent No, 1 vide order dated 24- 7-2007 through which revision filed by respondent No,3 Muhammad Hussain was allowed and ROR filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Hence this writ petition.
'Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that revenue authorities failed to consider the service , rendered by the petitioner as Sarbarah Lumberdar during the life time of deceased Lumberdar Charagh Din from the year, 1998 to 2003 and after his death till the appointment of permanent Lumberdar he worked as temporary Lumberdar. The petitioner is owner of more land than respondent No,3 Tehsildar has mentioned wrong facts in his report that petitioner was not interested in the appointment of Lumberdar. He belongs to Rejpoot family which is in majority in the chak. The petitioner is graduate when the respondent No,3 is primary pass. The impugned order passed by Member Board of Revenue is not based on reasons. The appointment of respondent No,3 was made in violation of Rule 17 of Land Revenue Act, 1968. He has relied on Noor Muhammad, Lumbardar v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore and other 2003 SCM R 708 and Naik Muhammad v. Mazhar Ali and others 2007 SCM R 112.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,3 has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that name of the petitioner was never recommended by any of the revenue authority from Tehsildar to Member Board of Revenue. Respondent No,3 was appointed by District Officer (Revenue) on the basis of recommendation of revenue field staff but the appointment order was set aside on the appeal filed by respondent No,2, Khurshid Ahmad and he was appointed as Lumberdar when appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and he once again lost his cause vide order dated 15-8-2006 passed by Executive District Officer (Revenue). The said order was challenged before member Board of Revenue through separate revision petitions by the petitioner and respondent No,3. The revision petition filed by Muhammad Aslam, petitioner was dismissed when revision petition of respondent No,3 Muhammad Hussain was succeeded and order dated 24-5-2006 originally passed in his' favour was restored. Learned counsel for respondent No,3 states that petitioner is not resident of concerned chak rather he is resident of Block No,3 Circle No,2 Union Council No,27 Urban Jahanian.
Learned counsel for respondent No,3 has placed on record list of voters for the year, 2007 in which at serial No,222 name of Muhammad Aslam son of Ahmad Din is mentioned. He states that appointment of the petitioner as permanent Lumberdar was made in compliance with the requirements of rule 17 by District Officer (Revenue) which was rightly upheld by Member Board of Revenue. It is prerogative of the revenue authorities to appoint permanent Lumberdar of their on choice for collection of revenue from land owners of the village. The order of revenue authorities based on reasons should not be interfered ordinarily in the constitutional petition. He has relied on Abdur Rehman v. Allah Rakha PLD 1966 W.P. (Revenue) 190, Muhammad Amir v. Naeem Arshad 2001 CLC 1773, Muhammad Maalik v. Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 3 others 2006 CLC 755 Lah., Mst. Sarwari Bibi v. Arshad Ali Khan and others 2007 YLR 702, Mazhar Ali v. Naik Muhammad and others 2004 YLR 2543 and Muhammad Jameel v. Member (Judicial-I), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others 2004 YLR 440.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The appointment of permanent Lumberdar under rule 17 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 is exclusive discretion of the revenue authorities. The recommendation of functionaries of revenue hierarchy carries weight and the same should not be ignored. The petitioner cannot claim his appointment as a right mere on the ground that he worked for some year as temporary Lumberdar. In this case petitioner was neither recommended by revenue field staff nor was appointed by any of the authority upto the Member Board of Revenue. Higher educational qualification of the petitioner can be a good ground for appointment of Lumberdar but in the absence of recommendation of lower functionaries from Patwari to Tehsildar and no confidence of the revenue field staff on the candidate who worked with them for a considerable period, can safely be ignored. The choice of District Officer (Revenue) selecting permanent Lumberdar ought not to be interfered with unless there is a gross irregularity in such appointment. I have gone through the reports of revenue field staff as well as the order of District Officer (Revenue) and Member Board of Revenue. A There is no specific disqualification or ineligibility in appointee/respondent No,3. This Court cannot interfere in the exclusive choice of revenue authority to appoint any one as permanent Lumberdar. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.