Through instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has called into question the legality and validity of orders dated 10.08.2010 and 04.10.2011 passed by Member, Board of Revenue (JudiciaMI) (Respondent No, 1) and order dated 09.04.2009 passed by Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bahawalnagar (Respondent No, 2) and order dated 28.09.2007 passed by District Officer (Revenue), District Bahawalnagar (Respondent No, 3).
2. The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that after the death of one Amir Rizwan Ali, who was permanent Lambardar of Chak No, 26/G, Tehsil Chishtian, the post of Lambardar fell vacant. The District Officer (Revenue), District Bahawalnagar (Respondent No, 3) invited applications for the said vacant post of Lambardar. The petitioner and 12 others including Respondent No, 4 applied for the said vacant post. Respondent No, 3 vide impugned ex` parte order dated 28.09.2007 appointed Ameer Imran Ali Khan (Respondent No, 4) as permanent Lambardar of Chak No, 26/G, Tehsil Chishtian. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before Executive District Officer (Revenue) Bahawalnagar (Respondent No, 2), which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 09.04.2009. The petitioner assailed the said order before Member, Board of Revenue, Judicial-II, Lahore (Respondent No, 1) in revision petition No, ROR.802/2009, which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 10.08.2010. Afterwards, petitioner filed a review petition under Section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957, in the same Court but it was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 04.10.2011. Hence, this writ petition. 3.It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been marked absent by Respondent No, 3 with mala fide intention whereas he was present on 28.09.2007 at the given time when the impugned order was passed. Further contends that appointment of Respondent No, 4 as Lambardar is against the provision of Rule 17 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968.
4.On the other hand, learned counsel. for Respondent No, 4 has controverted the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned orders passed by Respondents No, 1 to 3.
5.I have heard the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance.
6.It is discernable from the record that petitioner absented himself willfully when the impugned order dated 28.09.2007 was passed by Respondent No,
3. Instead of filing application for setting aside the said order he opted to file appeal which was neither accepted by the appellate authority nor by the revisional authority. The presence of the petitioner before Respondent No, 3 when the impugned order dated 28.09.2007 was passed has been negated from the record as well as by Respondent No, 4 vehemently which brings the case of the petitioner within the area of disputed question of facts which cannot be resolved by this Court while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
7.Even otherwise, appointment of Respondent No, 4 as Lambardar has been made in accordance with the settled principle of law. Respondent No, 4 has sufficient experience as he had been performing duties as temporary Lambardar after the death of his grand-father and father who were permanent Lambardars of Chak No, 261G, Tehsil Chishtian.
Respondent No, 4 is not a defaulter of the Revenue. Department and has also been declared suitable to be appointed as Lambardar by concerned Revenue Officers.
8. It is an established principle of law that choice of Collector should not ordinarily be interfered.
The appointment of Respondent No, 4 as Lambardar who was unanimously found suitable for appointment as permanent Lambardar, could not be set at naught without lawful justification.
Reference may be made to the case law titled as "Fateh Maseih v. Member, Board, of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others" (1996 SCM R 377).
9. It is also an established principle of law that no one has vested right to be appointed as Lambardar. Reference may be made to he case law reported as "Abdul Ghafoor v. The Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue and another" (1982 SCM R 202). The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced herein below:-- "3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and are inclined to agree with the High Court that no one has a vested right to be appointed as Lambardar and the relevant authorities select the persons best suited for the purpose with a view to facilitate the performance of administrative functions entrusted to Lambardars. In the present case all the competent authorities on the revenue side i,e, Collector, Commissioner and the Member Board of Revenue, after considering merits of both the sides, have ultimate selected Nawab Khan, respondent for the office in question.
The learned Judges of the High Court were, therefore, justified in observing that even if the final order of the Member Board of Revenue is assumed to be erroneous it could not be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court. We are therefore not inclined to interfere in this matter and the question of competency of second review can be considered in an appropriate case. With these observations the appeal is dismissed."
10.Further reference may also be made to the case law reported as "M. Nazir Ahmad v.
Muhammad Aslam and others" (2013 SCM R 363). Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced herein below: "As the entire effort of the revenue authorities in this behalf1 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 esponsibilities 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 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 b strictly followed in the lambardari matter."
11.This Court while considering the case of appointment lamberdar, is not supposed to sit as a Court of appeal, but only has examine, if there is any jurisdictional error in the order of reven authorities. Reliance is placed on case law titled as "Abdul Ghafoor The Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue and another"(1982 SCM R 202).
12.The findings of revenue authorities are concurrent in nature which do not require any interference by this Court while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction, hence, appointment of Respondent No, 4 by the revenue authorities is legal and does not require any interference by this Court.
13.For what has been discussed above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.