Through this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.2.2005, passed by the Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue, Punjab, order dated 14.04.2004, passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Vehari, as well as order dated 26.08.2003, passed by the District Officer (Revenue), Vehari. The District Officer (Revenue) Vehari, appointed respondent No, 4 as permanent Lumbardar on the death of previous Lumbardar, who was father of respondent No,
4. Petitioner was also contestant. He filed an appeal before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Vehari; which was dismissed on 14.04.2004. The matter was agitated before the Board of Revenue through ROR No, 1039 of 2004, which was also dismissed on 01.02.2005, hence, the instant writ petition.
2. Record shows that after filing of the instant writ petition which was fixed for hearing five times before today's date of hearing on every date of hearing either the learned counsel for the petitioner was not available, if available, requested for adjournment to prepare the brief. Today learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced arguments. Basic thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the ownership of land of respondent No, 4 is very small, therefore, his appointment is not correct as in case of any embezzlement in the land revenue collected by the Lumbardar if he does not deposit the same in the government treasury; for recovery of any such arrears, his ownership is inefficient. When questioned to the learned counsel that when respondent No, 4 was appointed as Lumbardar vide order dated 26.08.2003, whether there is any complaint about fulfillment of duty against him, the answer is in negative. In the above circumstances, when it is prerogative of the revenue hierarchy to appoint any one as a Lumbardar as the Lumbardar has to act in aid of the revenue officials. There are orders of three forums in favour of respondent No, 4, for the last twelve years he is working as Lumbardar and there is no complaint against him. Learned AAG also supports the decisions of the forums below. In the above circumstances and the attitude of the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, noted supra, no case for interference under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, in the orders passed by the revenue authorities has been made out, therefore, this writ petition stands dismissed.