Notices issued to Respondents No, 5 and 6 viz, Din Muhammad and Abdul Qayyum have been received bail with the report of the Process Server that both have refused to accept the service of notices. There is consensus in between the parties present that both are pro-forma respondents and in fact they are not practically interested in the proceedings of the present writ petition. They are, therefore, proceeded against ex-parte.
2. The Member (Judicial-VII), Board of Revenue Punjab, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, proceeded to dismiss the revision, filed by the present petitioner, against the judgment passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Layyah, accepting the appeal of Respondent No, 4 on 10.09.2008, which was filed against the original findings of the District Officer (Revenue), Layyah, arrived at on 24:08.2005, appointing the petitioner as Lambardar/headman of Chak No, 219/TDA, Tehsil Karor, District Layyah.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the District Officer (Revenue), who is Collector, in fact, acted on the reports of the field staff and ultimately appointed the petitioner as permanent Lambardar/headman. He further maintained that the petitioner is also a member of Zakat & Ushr Committee of the village and being an ex-Army Personnel, is a better choice as compared to Respondent No, 4.
4. As against this, the learned counsel appearing for contisting Respondent No, 4 has argued that although the rule of primogeniture has been declared repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, nevertheless the same is yet .the first consideration for appointment of headman of a village as provided in Rule 17 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968. In audition to such qualification, being son of the deceased Lambardar, Respondent No, 4 is owner of a much more chunk of land than that of the petitioner.
With regard to social status of the petitioner, it is argued that he is facing criminal proceedings in case registered under Sections 379 and 411 of P.P.C, and a person, implicated in an offence of theft, which is, no doubt, a crime of moral turpitude, cannot claim to be considered for appointment as headman of the village. The age difference in between two contestants is also claimed to be in favour of Respondent No,
4. According to the learned counsel for Respondent No, 4, the petitioner is an old man of 70 years and is a feeble person, whereas, Respondent No, 4 is not only 40 years of age but also a stout and active person.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. Keeping in view the provision of Rule 17 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, in addition to hereditary claims of the candidate, the extent of property in the estate, services rendered to the Government by him or by his family, his personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness, the strength and importance of the community from which selection of a headman is to be made and the ability to undergo training in Civil Defence, are the main considerations.
7. In case of Abdul Majeed vs. Member (Judicial-ID, Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore and 2 others (2006 YLR 1730), this, Court while dealing with the same question, has considered a young man to be more suitable to be appointed as a headman and a person having previous history of anti- social activities, was not held to be considered against such appointment. The educational qualification and holding of sufficient land to meet the requirement of Zar-e-Bharat are also held relevant considerations for a person to be appointed as headman in order to cope with the demands of the said office.
8. In another judgment reported as Noor Ahmad, vs. Member (Judicial-VD, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others (2008 CLC 1141), it has been held that no one has a vested right to be appointed as a Lambardar and if the authorities in revenue hierarchy selects a person best suited for the purpose with a view to. facilitate performance of administrative functions entrusted to such headman, that appointment cannot be disturbed in Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court. In the reported matter, the considerations for appointment of Lambardar in addition to the earlier one are included as strength of character education, knowledge, engagement in nation building activities and capacity to discharge rights and obligations towards his fellow-beings.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed his reliance on a view expressed by a Member Board of Revenue in case reported as Fazal Din vs. Bashir Ahmad (PLD 1961 W.P (Rev.) 98) to contend that age is not an important factor as against experience and understanding of social and human relationship.
10. After going through the record and hearing the arguments of the parties, I am of the view that the authorities in revenue hierarchy have decided the matter after taking into consideration of the case and the law on the subject and in absence of any jurisdictional error or any illegality on the part of the authorities, who decided the issue of appointment of Lambardar, the order impugned herein is not liable to be interfered with in Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court.
11. Resultantly, the petition having no force is dismissed and the findings passed by the learned Member (Judicial-VU), Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore in R.O.R No, 1048 of 2008 by means of order dated 22.12.2009 are maintained.