1. This writ petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981) read with Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977, calls in question the orders dated 10-9-1981, 19-7-197'7 and 31-1- 1977 respectively passed by the learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore; Commissioner Sargodha Division. Sargodha; and the Assistant Commissioner' Collector, Lyallpur.
2. The facts necessary for the purposes of this petition, briefly stated, are that on the demise of Zafar- ul-Haq Lambardar of Chak No. 121/JB, Tehsil and District Lyallpur, applications were invited by means of a general proclamation to fill up the vacancy. One Sadar Din was appointed Lambardar by order of the A. C./Collector, Lyallpur on 30-11-1972 which appointment was challenged before the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha who by his order dated 29-5-1973, remanded the case to the A. C./ Collector, Lyallpur for adjudication afresh.
3. Sadar Din preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Commis--sioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha to the learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, which was also dismissed whereupon he filed a writ petition in the High Court (W. P. No. 1936 of 1973). Sadar Din died during the pendency of the writ petition. In view of the decision of the High Court in the said writ petition the matter was referred to the Tchsildar for hearing of the contesting candidates and for forwarding his recommendations.
4. The Darned A. C./Collector, Lyallpur on receipt of the recommendations of the Tehsildar considered the merits/demerits of all the three contesting candidates and ultimately, by his order dated 31-1- 1977, appointed Muhammad Munir respondent No. 4 as the Lambardar. The considerations which weighed with the learned A. C./Collector were:
(i) that Muhammad Munir owned more land viz. 102 kanals, 14 marlas,
(ii) that he belonged to majority community, (i.e) that he was a member of civil defence, and
(iv) that he commanded influence an respect in the village.
5. As regards the contesting candidates for the post, namely Abdul Majad and Masood Ahmad, the learned A. C./Collector found that they were both "absentees", one of them is living in Germany, whilst the other namely Masood Ahmad the petitioner is residing in Sargodha where he is running his business of book-selling. They own less 4land-and belong to minority viz. They are Ahmadis.
6. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the learned A. C./Collector, the petitioner went up in appeal to the learned Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, who dismissed the same by his order dated 19-7-1977. The learned Commissioner concurred in the findings of the A. C./Collector and also found additionally that the petitioner's son was admitted in the village school only,, recently and that he is not obtaining any ration from the ration depot of the area. These factors, he concluded, also lent support to the fact that the petitioner Masood Ahmad is not residing in the Chak and consequently the disqualification contained in rule 18(2)(c) of the W. P. Land Revenue Rules, 1968, is attracted to his case.
7. Still feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner the petitioner went up in revision before the learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, who by his order dated 10-9-1981, dismissed the same on the ground of concurrent findings of the two forums below. Hence the present constitutional petition.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the forums below erroneously decided the matter by treating the appointment of Lambardar as if it was being made under rule 17 of the W. P.
9. Land Revenue Rules, 1968, and ignored the fact that this was merely a case of appointment of a successor which was governed by rule 19, ibid. He further contended that being an Ahmadi was not a disqualification as the lambardari was to be decided on the basis of one being an "Arain", "Jut", "Rajput", "Gujar", "Syed", etc. And not on the basis of religion and that the factor of the petitioner being an Ahmadi had caused prejudice in the mind of the Courts below which resulted in the erroneous decision.
10. I am afraid the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have no force.
11. The authorities have not treated the matter of the appointment of the Lambardar under rule 17, but, obviously, under rule 19 of the W. P. Land Revenue Rules. A perusal of the orders clearly shows that the merits and demerits of the various candidates were considered and on findings of fact which are concurrent now by all the forums below the decision was reached that respondent No. 4 is more suited to the appointment than the petitioner. The fact of the petitioner being related to the deceased Lambardar was also taken into consideration but it was. Found that he being an absentee and not living in the Chak and doing his business elsewhere in Sargodha would not be able to discharge his duties and thus his case would attract the provisions of rule 18(2)(c) of the aforesaid Rules. Now Explanation to rule 19 empowers the Collector to refuse to appoint a person as Lambardar who is claiming the post as an heir on the ground which would. Justify the dismissal of that t~ person from the office of Headman. That being so, rule 18(2)(c) could legitimately be read in rule 19 while making an appointment of a Lambardar thereunder. No exception can therefore be raised to the manner of appointment of respondent No. 4 as Lambardar and holding that the petitioner is not so entitled.
12. The other contention raised on behalf of the petitioner also has no force inasmuch as the fact of the petitioner being an Ahmadi is not the only consideration which weighed with the forums below while holding that he should not be appointed as Lambardar. In fact what materially weighed with the Courts below was the fact that the petitioner is not a resident of the village and is residing in Sargodha Town where he is running his business of book-selling which factor was brought on record through an affidavit of' Muhammad Munir, respondent No. 4 and there is no denial of the said affidavit by the petitioner Masood Ahmad. This finding of fact was concurred m by the learned Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and not only that but he also found from the record that the children of the petitioner were recently got admitted in the school of the village presumably to show that he is residing there. He also found that the petitioner is not obtaining ration from the ration depot of the area. On these findings of fact the appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar was found not to be justified as he attracted the disqualification provided by rule 18(2)(c) of the W. P. Land Revenue Rules, 1968.
13. A perusal of the orders of the learned A. C./Collector and also of the learned Commissioner shows that the factor of the petitioner bein an Ahmadi was taken by them as of secondary nature and thus no prejudice appears to have been caused to him by the observations on this point by the Courts below. Otherwise also there could be raised no valid exception to this factor being taken into considera--tion as by comparison it has been found by the learned A. C./ Collec--tor that there were 65 Muslim owners in the village as against 7/8 Ahmadis and thus the majority is obviously of the community to which respondent No. 4 belongs. The learned Commissioner has also found from the record that the residents of the village were not willing to accept the petitioner or any one belonging to his community to be the Lambardar of the village and had the petitioner been appointed it would have necessarily entailed improper functioning of the office of Lambardar.
14. Additionally, it may be observed that the reasons given by the forums below for holding that the petitioner is not suited for appointment as a Lambardar of the village in question as compared with respondent No. 4 Muhammad Munir are based on concurrent findings of fact. It is by now well settled that the controversies of fact resolved by the forums of exclusive jurisdiction and statutory authorities are not open to question in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court even though the decisions may be erroneous. Refer Muhammad 'Husain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others (PLD 1974 SC 139).
15. Before parting with the case it may also be observed that 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 W. P. 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.