' ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, Khalid Mahmood petitioner has assailed the legality and propriety of the order dated 10- 2-2009 passed by Member Board of Revenue (Judicial-Ill) Punjab Lahore/ respondent No,2 whereby a review petition filed by Muhammad Ramzan/respondent No,1 against the order of Member Board of Revenue (Judicial) Punjab Lahore dated 7-8-2007 was accepted and respondent No,1 was appointed as Lambardar.
2. Precisely necessary facts leading to this constitutional petition are that Muhammad lqbal father of the petitioner, permanent Lambardar of Chak No,16-G Tehsil Chishtian District Bahawalnagar died in the year 1993. Consequent upon his demise District Officer (Revenue) Bahawalnagar appointed Muhammad Ramzan/respondent No,1 as Lambardar vide order dated 18-10-2006.
Feeling aggrieved petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by Executive District Officer (Revenue) Bahawalnagar on 6-2-2007. Petitioner assailed the said order through Revision ROR No,399 of 2007 before the Member Board of Revenue which was accepted vide order dated 7-8- 2007 by respondent No,2 and petitioner was appointed as Lambardar of Chak No,16-G tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar. Being dissatisfied respondent No,1 filed a review petition before respondent No,2 against the order dated 7-8-2007, which was accepted vide order dated 10-2- 2009 and respondent No,1 was appointed as Lambardar of the said Chak. The petitioner has impugned the said order .Dated 10-2-2009 through instant constitutional petition under Article 199 on the grounds that it is against law and facts and without jurisdiction.
3: Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued this petition on the following points:--
(i) that Member Board of Revenue/ respondent No,2 had no jurisdiction to review the order of his predecessor passed on merits. Reliance is made upon Manzoor Khan v. The Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore and others 1989 MLD 1406.
(ii) that petitioner being holder of two master degrees as well as son of the deceased Lambardar was more suitable candidate for the appointment as Lambardar as compared to respondent No,1 and that learned District Officer (Revenue) Bahawalnagar vide order dated 18-10-2006 and Executive District Officer (Revenue) Bahawalnagar vide order dated 6-2-2007 while declining his appointment had lost sight of the above mentioned qualifications of the petitioner;
(iii) that Member Board of Revenue/ respondent No,2 vide his order dated 7-8-2007 had rightly set aside the findings of lower Revenue Authorities while accepting the petitioner's revision petition and appointing him as Lambadar:
4. It is resisted by learned counsel for respondent No,1 with the arguments that section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, confers ample power on the Board of Revenue to review an order passed without due diligence or for other sufficient reason. It is further contended that the Member Board of Revenue while passing the order dated 7-8-2007 had lost sight of the material facts and evidence; that Khalid Mahmood petitioner is a government servant, therefore, it will not be possible for him to perform the duties of Lambardar as well and thus he does not qualify to be Lambardar of the said Chak; that above noted error in fact and law committed by Member Board of Revenue in his order dated 7-8-2007 has been rightly reviewed and corrected through subsequent order dated 10-2-2009, which is assailed through this writ petition without any cogent or convincing reason.
5. I have given patient hearing to the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. the Land Revenue Rules, which provided inter alia that in addition to the duties imposed upon Headman under any other A Rule the Headman shall:--
(i) Collect the land revenue and all sums recoverable as land revenue from the estate in which he holds office, collect rents and other income of the common land.
(ii) Report to the Tehsildar all encroachments on roads (including village roads) or on Governments waste lands and injuries to, or appropriation of, Government property situated within the estate.
(iii) Report any injury to public buildings in the estate.
(iv) Implement, to the best of his ability, any orders that he may receive from the Collector, requiring him to furnish information or to assist in providing, on payment, supplies or means of transport for troops or for officers of Government on duty.
(v) Assist, in such manner as the Collector may from time to time direct, at all crop inspections, recording of mutations, surveys, preparation of records of rights or other revenue business within the estate.
(vi) Attend the summons of all authorities having jurisdiction in the estate; assist, when so required by them, all officers of the Government in the discharge of their duties; furnish all relevant information in this behalf.
6. The duties of Headman (Lambardar) are prescribed in Rule 22 of.
(vii) Report to the Patwari any outback of disease among human beings or cattle and the deaths- of any right-holders in the estate, or subdivision of the estate, in which he holds office.
(viii)Report any breach or cut in a Government Irrigation canal or channel, to the nearest Canal Officer, Zilladar or canal Patwari.
(ix) Under the general or special directions of the Collector; to use his good offices to assist all officers of Government and other persons, duly authorized by the Collector, in the enrolment of military personnel.
7. It is pertinent to mention that while appointing a person as Lambardar of a Chak, the appointing Authority should not lose sight of the fact that such person should be normally available in the village to perform his day to day functions and duties attached to the office of Lambardar.
Certainly a person who is doing some other job else where being an absentee will not be able to discharge functions/duties as Lambardar efficiently and adequately. Needless to mention that mere academic qualification is no ground to claim extra suitability for appointment as Lambardar.
Simultaneously, rule of Primogeniture is also not available to the petitioner seeking appointment as Larnbardar. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that his candidature could not be discarded merely on the ground of being a government servant is devoid of any force. It is noteworthy that Member Board of Revenue vide order dated 7-8-2007 while considering the petitioner as a suitable candidate for appointment as Lambardar did not take into consideration the fact that how a' government servant (school teacher) would be able to perform dual duties as a school teacher and Lambardar at a time.
8. At this stage I would like to reproduce section 8, of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (Act XI of 1957), which reads below:-- "8(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree passed or order made by the Board and who, form the discovery of new important matter of evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order was made, on account of some mistake or error -apparent on the face of the record (or for other sufficient reason) desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply to Board of Revenue for a review of judgment and the Board may, after giving notice to the parties affected thereby and after hearing them, pass decree or order as the circumstances of the case require.
9. (2) Every application for a review of a decree or order under subsection (1) shall be made within ninety days from the date of that decree or order."
10. The expressions after the exercise of due diligence and or for other sufficient reason used in the afore-referred provision of section 8 ibid sufficiently enunciate the spirit of legislation for review of an order lacking exercise of due diligence or for other sufficient reason. Therefore, 'argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that Member Board of Revenue was not competent to review the earlier order dated 7-8-2007 passed by his predecessor is misconceived and devoid of any force.
10. Admittedly, Khalid Mahmood petitioner is a government servant (school teacher), therefore, obviously it will not be possible for him to perform multifarious duties attached to the office of Lambardar. Needless to mention that Revenue Authorities on the basis of their experience are always in a better position to make suitable choice for appointment of Lambardar on merits out of the various candidates. I have no hesitation to reach the conclusion that District Officer (Revenue) vide his order dated 18-10-2006 had rightly appointed respondent No,1 as Lambardar on merits.
Therefore, Executive District Officer (Revenue) had rightly dismissed the petitioner's appeal vide his order dated 6-2-2007 in accordance with law based on sound reasons whereas order dated 7-8- 2007 passed by Member Board of Revenue in revision was lacking appreciation of material facts and exercise of due diligence. As noted above Member Board of Revenue in its order dated 10-2- 2009 has exhaustively discussed the entire merits of the case while accepting the review in favour of respondent No,
1. As a sequel to the above Member Board of Revenue/ respondent No,2 in exercise of his review jurisdiction in ,terms of section 8(1) of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (Act XI of 1957) has rightly reviewed the order dated 7-8-2007 in accordance with law. Reliance is made upon Mehr Ali v. Noor Muhammad and others (2007 SCM R 1965) and Muhammad Yousaf v.
Member Board of Revenue and 4 others 1996 SCM R 1581.
11. I have also carefully gone through the case of Manzoor Khan cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. Facts of the cited case are altogether distinct and distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. Therefore, dictum laid down in the said case cannot be siphoned on to the facts of this case and are of no avail to the petitioner.
12. For the foregoing discussion and reasons I do not find any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order, therefore, instant constitutional petition has no merits and is hereby dismissed.