' IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, J.---This appeal by the leave of the Court arises out of the order dated 23.10.2007 whereby the constitutional petition, filed by the appellant, has been disposed of by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench by upholding the orders of the fora below whereby Respondent No,4 namely Abdul Ghani (hereinafter to be referred as the Respondent) was appointed as Lambardar for Chak No,63/Fateh, Tehsil Hasilpur, District Bahawalpur.
2. The concise facts of the case are that on the demise of Haji Muhammad Ashraf on 16.12.2002, who was the Lambardar of the said Chak, the post of the Lambardar fell vacant which was contested by 14 candidates and ultimately the Respondent was appointed by the District Collector as Lambardar vide order dated 10.04.2003 against which the appeal filed before the EDO(R) was dismissed vide order dated 20.07.2004. The said order was called in question by the appellant along with three others before the Member (Judicial-V) Board of Revenue, Punjab who vide order dated 4.08.2005 dismissed the same. The appellant being aggrieved challenged the same before the High Court through a writ petition and the High Court while concurring with the orders of the fora below has disposed of the same.
3. On 9.04.2010 leave to appeal was granted in this case in the following terms:- "Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and the documents available on the paper book particularly with reference to the contents of the order dated 10.4.2003 passed by the District Officer (Revenue)/Collector, Bahawalpur on the subject, we are inclined to grant leave to appeal, inter alia, to consider as to whether the officers/forums in the revenue hierarchy have applied their mind within the meaning of Sub-rule (e) of Rule 17 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968 as to the factum of predominant caste of the candidates of the village in question eventually reflected from the order of the District Officer Revenue.
2. Appeal on the present record be prepared. However, the parties shall at liberty to file additional documents, if they so deemed proper."
4. Learned counsel for the appellant while adverting to sub-rule (e) of Rule 17 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 asserts that the appellant by caste is Arain and the revenue estate of Chak No,63/Fateh, Tehsil Hasilpur, District Bahawalpur is in pre-dominant majority of Arain Community following by the ratio of 70% while the community of Respondent, who belongs to the Jat Community, has a ratio of 30%. He further asserts that the appellant is a successful Advocate by profession and is highly qualified having an economic and social status in the majority community and could render better services to the community as well as the Government while the Respondent is not even a matriculate.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel representing Respondent No,4 asserts that the Revenue hierarchy while making the appointment of the Respondent as Lambardar have given due consideration to each and everything by holding that the Respondent is the owner of land more than the appellant i,e, 22 kanals 6 marlas; that he is making recoveries of the government dues and depositing the same within time; that there is no complaint against him and he is satisfactorily performing the functions of Lambardari. Learned counsel states that he has passed his primary examination in the pre-partitioned days which was of very high standard in that time. Further asserts that the appellant on account of his professional engagements cannot give due time towards the functions of Lambardari as against it the Respondent while always being present in his Chak can render good services as Lambardar as such the Revenue hierarchy have rightly made the appointment of the Respondent.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the available record as well as the judgments/orders of the fora below. Before proceeding further in the matter in issue it would be appropriate to reproduce Rule 17(e) of the Rules ibid which reads as under:-
17. Matters to be considered in first appointment. -In all first appointments of headmen regard shall be had among other matters to:- ................................. .................................
(e) the strength and importance of the community from which selection of a headman is to be made; .................................
' The appellant has basically called in question the appointment of the Respondent as Lambardar on the basis of the above quoted rule wherein it has laid that while making the appointment of Headmen, the strength and importance of the community from which selection of a headman is to be made. Undoubtedly the appellant belongs to the majority community known as Arain. While perusing the orders of the DO(R), EDO(R) and Member (Judicial-V), Board of Revenue, Punjab as well as High Court, it is quite apparent that while deciding the matter in issue they have not taken into consideration the relevant rules. Even from the order of Member (Judicial-V), Board of Revenue, Punjab it appears that the said Officer while dismissing the revisions petitions has not applied his judicial mind by holding that "The contention of counsel for the petitioner that the case has not been considered in the light of factors considered for appointment of Lambardar under Rule 17 of Land Revenue Rules, 1968 is unsubstantiated. It has been observed that while passing the above observations neither he has been able to give any substantial reason nor any ground for by-passing the above quoted rule and the High Court also while concurring with the orders of the fora below has disposed of the same in the following terms:- "4. In these circumstances of the case the justification given by the Member Board of Revenue has weight. Otherwise as already noted the parity in merit of the two candidates requires exercise of discretion which presently does not disclose illegality calling for interference with the concurrent findings. With these observations the case is disposed of."
' As such the same cannot be considered to be speaking orders.
7. In light of the above, it appears that the fora below have completely failed to discuss and give any reason for arriving at such a conclusion. As such without going into the merits of the case, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned orders and send the case back to the Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, Punjab for deciding the same afresh keeping in view the relevant rules as well as each and every aspect of the matter.