JUDGMENT ORDER SYED AKHLAQ AHMAD, J.---Through this writ, Allah Ditta/petitioner has called in question the orders dated 1-2-2010, 26-10-2005 and 13-8-2004 passed by Member (Judi-II) Board of Revenue Punjab Lahore, Executive District Officer (Revenue) Okara and District Officer (Revenue)
Okara respectively.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on the death of Rustam Ali/Lamberdar of Chak No.37-38-A/4-L Tehsil and District Okara, the post of Lamberdar fell vacant. D.O.R Okara invited applications to fill up the said post. Reports were also called from the lower hierarchy of the Revenue Department. 14 candidates applied for the post but ultimately three remained in the field. Lntizar Hussain/respondent No.4 was appointed as Lambardar by DOR vide order dated 13-8-2004 inter alia on the ground that he was nephew of Rustam Ali/ deceased/Lambardar and hereditory claim cannot be ignored and further that he has been recommended by the concerned Revenue Officers. The petitioner as well Ranjha Khan/respondent No.5 challenged the aforesaid order by filing separate appeals before the EDO (R) Okara who dismissed the same vide order dated 26-10- 2005. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid orders, the petitioner filed revision petition before the Member (Judi-II) Board of Revenue Punjab Lahore who too, dismissed the same vide order dated 1- 2-2010.Hence this writ.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Intizar Hussain/respondent No.4 is not related with Rustam Ali/ deceased/Lambardar. Even otherwise, rule of primogeniture as the basis of appointment of successor, had been declared violative of the injunction of Islam. Although the concerned Revenue Officers have recommended him/respondent No.4 but a case F.I.R. No.67 of 1999 dated 27-3-1999 under sections 186/506, P.P.C. Stood registered against him on the application of Muhammad Sadiq Rustam deceased/ Lambardar and on the direction of tehsildar Okara. Registration of the aforesaid criminal case is sufficient to nullify the recommendations made by the Revenue authorities in favour of respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 was, thus, not qualified to discharge the duties of the office honestly. All the revenue courts have not considered the merits and demerits of the petitioner and respondent No.4 by placing them in juxtaposition. The petitioner possessed better qualification as compared to the said respondent on all counts. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ may be accepted and the orders dated 1-2-2010, 26-10-2005 and 13-8-2004 passed by respondents Nos.1 to 3/revenue hierarchy be declared illegal and without lawful authority and Allah Ditta/petitioner be ordered to be appointed as Lambardar of Chak No.37-38-A/4-L, Tehsil and District Okara.
4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon PLD 1999 SC 484.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the documents, available on the file.
6. It is by now well-settled the controversies of fact resolved by the forums exclusive jurisdiction and statutory authorities are not open to question in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court even though the decision may. Be erroneous. In this regard reference can be made to case of Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others, .PLD 1974 SC 139.
7. In the case in hand, not only the finding of fact is concurrent but the same is otherwise based on perusal of the record. No valid objection could therefore be raised to such a finding. Wrong quoting of Rule 17 instead of Rule 19 read with rule 18(2)(c) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules at the time of ordering appointment of Latnbardar by the Revenue Officer does not make the appointment of Intizar Hussain/respondent No.4 as lambardar to be invalid.
8. The matter of appointment of a Lambardar is essentially an administrative measure and there is no vested right in any person to lay. Claim to that office. On a conjunctive reading of the rules governing the subject of appointment of Lambardar; it emerges, that these do not confer any legal right on a person but are of directory nature to provide a guideline to the statutory authorities to choose a successor Lambardar. The manifest object underlying these rules is to appoint a person who in the opinion of the Appointing Authority is most suitable, from amongst the eligible candidates and the scrutiny of such an appointment is left with the hierarchy under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. Otherwise also in the nature of things the selection or choosing of a successor Lambardar should be left to the hierarchy of Revenue Officers who on account of their experience training and knowledge about local affairs are in a better position to make a suitable choice. The subject of appointment of a Lambardar is therefore not such which may appropriately fall for determination in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion I find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. (Masood Ahmad v. Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue and others, 1982 CLC 357, Sharaf Din v. Qazi Abdul Jalil and another, 1986 SCM R 1368 and Saleem Akhtar v. Member (Jud1-III) of BOR Punjab and others 2003 PSC 405 (Supreme Court of Pakistan) relied upon).