' CH. NAEEM MASOOD, J.--- The brief facts of the case are that Haji Bahawal-ud-Din/respondent No.3 was the Lumberdar of Chak No.65-WB, Tehsil and District Vehari, Haji Bahawal-ud-Din became old and he made an application in 1991 to the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector to abdicate the crown of Lumberdari' and handed over to his son Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor/respondent No.2. The Collector accepted this application and appointed respondent No.2 as Lumberdar, on 10-6-1991. Ahmad Ali one of the sons of Haji Bahawal-ud-Din filed an appeal before respondent No.4, Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan. Haji Bahawal-ud-Din was summoned in the Court on which he stated that he had not tendered the resignation yet, so the appeal was accepted and Haji Bahawal-ud-Din continued to work as Lumberdar. Against the said order dated 4-1-1993, two sons of Haji Bahawal-ud-Din namely Abdul Ghafoor and Ahmed Ali filed two separate appeals, which were accepted on 5-12-1993 and the case was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner and then on 5-9-1994 to the Commissioner Multan Division, Multan to be decided on merits. On remand Ahmed Ali withdrew his appeal on 27-2-1995 and on the basis of compromise in between the family members, Haji Bahawal-ud-Din's son Abdul Ghafoor was appointed as Lumberdar. It was at this stage, that the petitioners challenged the order dated 10-6- 1991 passed by the District Collector, Vehari and the order dated 27-2-1995, passed by the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan before respondent No.1, Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue, Punjab. This revision petition was dismissed vide order of respondent No.1 on 24.7-2000.
The petitioners have challenged the said order through this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that a novel procedure has been adopted to retain' the Lumberdari in the family and that a legal, transparent and fair procedure has not been adopted as envisaged under the Rules.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab and learned counsel representing respondent No.2 have supported the impugned order to be legal and valid. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon.
' Muhammad Shafi v. Syed Mushtaq Hussain Shah and others 1994 MLD 1882, Noor Muhammad, Lambardar v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others 2003 SCMR 708, Haji Muhammad Ilyas v. Fazal Hussain and others PLD 1979 Lah. 876, Muhammad Yousaf v. Member Board of Revenue and 4 others 1996 SCMR 1581, Muhammad Aslam v. Syed Ahmad Naeem and others PLD 1992 SC 819, Raees Khan and 5 others v. Afridi Khan and 4 others PLD 1989 Pesh. 75, Bashir Ahmad v. Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others. 2007 CLC 354.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab and have perused the record minutely.
5. It is pertinent to mention at the very beginning that all the authoritative law referred by the learned for respondent No.2 is quite distinguishable for the petition in hand. It is also noteworthy that the proceedings in this case have not been conducted in accordance with West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to be as "The Rules"). The provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules are relevant in this context, which are reproduced below:--- "19 Matters to be considered in appointment of successor.--- (1) In an estate or sub-division thereof, owned chiefly or altogether by Government, successor to the office of headman shall be selected, with due regard to all the considerations, other than hereditary claims, stated in rule 17: ' Provided that in such an estate or sub-division thereof, notified for the purpose by the Board of Revenue, the selection shall, as far as possible, be made in the manner prescribed by sub-rule (2) if a suitable heir is forth-coming.
(2) In other estates the nearest eligible heir, according to the rules of primogeniture shall be appointed unless some special custom of succession to the office be distinctly proved but subject, in every case, to the following provisions:---
(a) the claim of a collateral of the last incumbent to succeed, shall not be admitted solely on the ground of inheritance, unless the claimant is a descendant, in the male line, of the paternal great- grandfather of the last incumbent;
(b) where a headman has been dismissed in accordance with the provisions of rule 18, the Collector may refuse to appoint any of his heirs---
(i) if the circumstances of the offence, dereliction of duty or disqualification for which the headman was dismissed make it probable that he would be unsuitable as a headman;
(ii) If there is reason to believe that he has connived at the offence or dereliction of duty for which the headman has been dismissed;
(iii) if any disqualification for which the headman has been dismissed, attached to him;
(iv) if he may reasonably be supposed to be under the influence of the dismissed headman or his family to an undesirable extent.
Explanation.---If a dismissed headman's heir is considered fit to succeed, regard shall be had to the property which he would inherit.
(c) The Collector may also refuse to appoint a person claiming as an heir, on any ground which would necessitate or justify the dismissal of that person from the office of the headman;
(d) A female is not ordinarily eligible for appointment to the office of a headman, but may be appointed, when she is the sole owner of the estate, for which the appointment has to be made, or, for special reasons.
(3) Failing the appointment of an heir, a successor to the office shall be appointed in the manner, and with regard to the considerations, described in rule 17.
(4) Election shall not, in any case, be resorted to as an aid in making appointments, under this rule and rule 16."
6. The revenue authorities have traversed on an illegal assumption that the post of Lumberdari is the personal ownership of respondent No.3/Haji Bahawal-ud-Din. The law does not permit such assumption. For all practical purposes, respondent No.3 has abandoned the responsibility of Lumberdari. The vacancy of Lumberdari in the Chak merits to be thrown open to all the members of the estate. More so, when it is a settled principle of law that the sacrosanctity of rule of primogeniture has seriously been questioned by the Honourable apex Court, it, is a matter of most suitable person to conduct as a Lumberdari in the Chak on the basis of his best credentials in the entirety of citizenry of Chak No.65-WB, Tehsil and District Vehari. The writ petition is, therefore, Accepted. The case is remanded to the District Officer (Revenue)/Collector, Vehari to determine the suitability of the successor Lumberdar of Haji Bahawal-un-Din/respondent No.3 by inviting applications from all the estate-holders and decide the case strictly in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own expenses.