' SHAHID MUBEEN, J.--- Through the instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has called into question the validity and legality of orders dated 26.09.2011 and, 25.01.2011 passed by respondent No, 1/Senior Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and respondent No,2/Executive District Officer (Revenue), Toba Tek Singh, respectively.
2. Briefly facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application before Tehsildar Tehsil Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh/respondent No,4 for the appointment of Lambardar of Chak No,754-G.B. Tehsil Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh as the earlier Lambardar Anayat Ali had passed away and the seat became vacant due to his death. Respondent No,3/District Officer (Revenue), Toba Tek Singh appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of the said Chak vide order dated 23.11.2010.
Respondent No,5/Bashir Ahmad son of Anayat Ali filed an appeal before respondent No,2 against the order dated 23.11.2010, which was accepted by respondent No,2 by appointing him as Lambardar of the said Chak. The petitioner filed revision petition before respondent No,1 which met with the same fate and was dismissed vide order dated 26.09.2011, hence this writ petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that order dated 23.11.2010 passed by respondent No,3 appointing the petitioner as Lambardar should not have been ignored as it has been passed in accordance with the reports' submitted by the field staff. He relies on 2006 CLC 755.
On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No,5 has supported the impugned orders passed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 appointing him as Lambardar of the said Chak.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. There is concurrent findings of fact recorded by respondent No, 1/Senior Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore vide order dated 26.09.2011 and respondent No,2/Executive District Officer (Revenue), Toba Tek Singh, Lahore vide order dated 25.01.2011. Respondent No,5 owns land measuring 61-kanals 7-marlas in Chak No,754-G.B, which is sufficient land for Zar-e-Bharat. It is also proved from the record that respondent No,5 has rendered services as Sarbrah Lambardar for a long time and he is well versed with the duties of the post of Lambardar. Learned counsel for respondent No,5 has provided copy of the challan wherein respondent No,5 has been declared innocent. Respondent No,5 has also placed on record certificate of his passing matric from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha. He has also placed on record order dated 19.04.2011 wherein it has been stated that nothing is outstanding against respondent No,5. So far as the petitioner is concerned, i;e has not placed on record any proof that he is matriculate, therefore, finding of respondent No,2 is correct that the petitioner is not matriculate whereas he is middle. The most important thing in appointing respondent No,5 as Lambardar is that he had been performing the duties as Sarbrah Lambardar for a long time and has experience to perform such duties. Reference may be made to case titled Bashir Ahmad v. Member (Judicial-Ill), Board of Revenue Punjab and others (2002 SCM R 1371). To be appointed as Lambardar is not the vested right of anybody. Reliance is placed on case titled M. Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Aslam and others (2013 SCM R 363). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:- "As per the settled law, lambardari is an administrative post of its own kind, which has the colour and tinge of any honorary post and assignment, in any case it is neither in the nature of government service nor a profession or an avocation having any nexus to an office of profit such a drawing salary etc. From the government exchequer (Note: may be some monetary benefits etc. Can be said to be attained by the Lambardar directly or indirectly by virtue of his office), it is also not a vested right of a person to be appointed as Lambardar, rather the revenue authorities, for the purposes of assigning certain responsibilities to a person in the Chak, make a selection as per the criteria set out in rule 17 of the Land Revenue Rules and to find the most suitable candidate for the job who could capably discharge the duties inter alia in terms of rule 22 of the rules ibid. As the entire effort of the revenue authorities in this behalf should be to find out and locate the most suitable person for the job, because no one, as mentioned above, has a vested right to the appointment, rather a Lambardar is saddled with certain responsibilities in connection with the collection of the land revenue, Abiana and other government dues, etc. Therefore, for choosing the best available person, on whom trust can be reposed, the condition and requirement of qualifications in strict terms, which may otherwise be adhered to in some other kinds of recruitments in the government service etc. Especially in relation to and by a given and a specific date meant for applying for such posts/appointments, should not be strictly followed in the lambardari matter."
' Reliance is also placed on case titled Abdul Ghafoor v. Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue and another (1982 SCMR 2002).
6. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by respondents Nos.1 and 2 are in accordance with law which cannot be upset by this Court while exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e, 2006 CLC 755 is distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
7. Sequel to the above, this writ petition is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed with no order as to cost.