MIRZA VIQAS RAUF , J.----The post of village headman fell vacant due to death of Ahmed Khan, who died issueless. The petitioner namely Abdul Wahid, considering himself eligible for the appointment as village headman, moved an application before respondent No.3. By way of order dated 18th May, 2017, the petitioner was appointed as village headman, which order was assailed by one Shabbir Ahmed before the Commissioner through an appeal, which was accepted by way of order dated 23rd January , 2018 and matter was remanded to the respondent No.3 for fresh appointment. In post remand proceedings, applications were again invited from the candidates and the petitioner along with four others including respondent No.4 (hereinafter referred as "respondent") applied for the post of village headman. Though five candidates applied for the said post but one of them namely Malik Mushtaq Ahmed withdrew his candidature in favour of "respondent" and one other name ly Muhammad Safdar opted to withdraw in favour of petitioner . After initial process by Tehsildar concerned, the matter was referred to the District Officer (Revenue) for a decision. "Respondent" was consequently appointed as village headman by way of order dated 23rd October , 2018 passed by the District Collector , Attock. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 before the. Commissioner , Rawalpindi. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Rawalpindi vide order dated 14th November , 2019. The petitioner then assailed the said order through a revision petition under Section 164 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 before the Board of Revenue, Punjab. The revision petition was also dismissed vide order dated 25th March, 2021, which is now impugned in the instant constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the most suitable candidate and as such he was rightly appointed as village headman by the District Collector in the first round. He added that in the second round, the District Collector , while awarding marks, completely overlooked the provisions of Rule 17 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 and unlawfully assigned marks to the "respondent" and deprived the petitioner from his legitimate right. Learned counsel argued that the impugned orders are not tenable under the law.
Learned counsel emphasized that hereditary right is no more available. Placed reliance on Maobool Ahmad Qureshi v . The Islamic Republic of Pakistani (PLD 1999 Supreme Court 484).
3. Conversely , learned counsel representing the "respondent" submitted that the "respondent" was appointed as village headman while considering the mandatory provisions of law, which order was rightly affirmed by the appellate authority as well as Board of Revenue in revision. Learned counsel contended that appointment of "respondent" was made in accord with rules and the impugned orders are unexceptionable. In order to supplement his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on Mehr Ali v. Noor Muhammad and others (2007 SCMR 1965 ) and Muhammad Saeed Ghulam Sarwar and another ( 2008 SCMR 1586 ).
4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer, while adding to the submissions of learned counsel for the "respondent" submitted that there is no jurisdictional defect in the order under assailance. He argued that the petitioner has no vested right to claim the post of village headman.
5. Heard, Record perused.
6. It is an admitted fact that the post of village headman of village. Maghian, Tehsil Pindigheb, District Attock fell vacant due to death of Ahmed Khan (village headman). A formal permission was given by the District Officer (Revenue)/Collector , to initiate the proceedings for filling up of vacancy . Initially , the petitioner was appointed as village headman by way of order dated 18th May, 2017 passed by the District Collector , Attock. Feeling aggrieved, one Shabbir Ahmed preferred an appeal before the Commissioner . The appeal was accepted by way of order dated 23rd January , 2018 and the matter was remanded to the District Collector for fresh appoint. In pursuance to the said order , fresh applications were invited'by Tehsildar from the willing candidates. Five persons in toto, including the petitioner and the "respondent", applied for the said post. Ultimately , due to withdrawal of the candidature of two applicants, the petitioner , "respondent" and one Shabbir Ahmed remained in field.
7. Record reveals that Tehsildar recommended the "respondent" as suitable candidate for the post, who then transmitted the case to the Assistant Commissioner , Pindigheb, which was further forwarded to the District Collector , Attock for a decision. The District Collector , Attock, vide his order dated 23rd October , 2018, appointed the "respondent" as village headman. The petitioner assailed the said order through an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Rawalpindi Division (Camp at Attock). His appeal was dismissed by way of order dated 14th November , 2019. The petitioner then assailed the said order through a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Punjab but of no avail and the same was dismissed vide order dated 25th March, 2021.
8. Before pondering upon the question of competency of this petition against the concurrent findings a the revenue hierarchy , it would be advantageous to observe that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case of "Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi v. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan" (PLD 1999 SC 484) laid down the criterion for the appointment of village headman in the following manner:- "A study of these rules shows that the estates to which appointment of a Lambard ar is required to be made are of three kinds viz (t) Estate chiefly owned by Government (ii) Estate owned by Landowners, and (iii) Estate owned by a sole landowner . The other relevant question is whether the appointment is to be made for the first time or for successor of the dismissed or deceased appointed Lambardar .'
Rule 17 provides for the matters to be considered in making first appointment and hereditary claim is one factor amongst others which is to be considered while Rule 19(1) provides that in an estate owned chiefly or altogether by the Government, a successor headman is to be selected with due regard to enumerated considerations in Rule 17, other than the hereditary claim and sub-rule (2) provides that in other estates the nearest eligible heir according to the rules of primogeniture is to be appointed to succeed the deceased appointed Lambardar subject to the provisions of clauses (a) to (e). Clause (d) then provides that where a female is sole owner of the estate, she may be appointed for this reason or for any other special reasons though ordinarily a female is not eligible for appointment so, a minor may come to be appointed in estates largely owned by him, and in such an estate an absentee may also be appointed and in these three situations a Sarbrah may be appointed under Rules 25 and 26 of the Rules. The other relevant information gathered from the Board of Revenue, Punjab is that there are almost forty thousand Lambardars appointed in entire Punjab, that many estates in Bahawalpur Division are without Lambardars and the office is lying vacant for lack of keen interest of landowners, while very hot contest takes place in cases of first appointment or appointment of a successor in estates in which the appointed Lambardar is to receive land of Lambardari Grant."
It is manifestly clear from the above that along with other relevant factors, hereditaiy claim is one, which is to be taken into consideration in the appointment of village headman.
9. By virtue of notification No.881-2010/397-LR-II dated 20th April, 2010, Rule 17 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 was substituted which describes the criterion for the appointment of headman and reads as follows: -
17. Matters to be considered in the first appointment.--- (1) In the first appointment of a headman (Lambardar), following matters shall be considered and the maximum marks to be assigned against each item are as under:
(a) Hereitary claim of the candidate Maximum Marks 30 i. First blood 30 Marks i. Second blood 15 Marks
(b) Candidate's community in the estate or sub-division of the estate for which appointment is to be madeMaximum Marks 30 i. Overwhelming majority 30 Marks (ii) Second largest Majority 15 Marks
(c) Extent of property of the candidate in the estate or sub- division of the estate for which appointment is to be made.Maximum Marks 30 i. Five acres or more 10 Marks i. Less than five acres 05 Marks
(d) Educational qualification of the candidate Maximum Marks 10 (i) Secondary School Certificate, Equivalent or above. 10 Marks (ii) Literate i.e. able to read and write Urdu 05 Marks
(e) Personal character , ability and influence of the candidate and his freedom from indebtedness.Maximum Marks 10
(f) Quality of farming of the candidate in the revenue estate Maximum Marks 10 (2) On receipt of a proposal regarding the appointment of a headman from the Tehsildar , the Collector shall hold "Ijlas-e-Aam" in the Revenue Estate and submit to the District Collector his report and recommendations concerning each item under sub-rule (1) and the marks awarded to each candidate.
(3) On receipt of a report and recommendations of the Collector , the District Colle ctor shall give an opportunity of hearing to all the candidates, give his own findings on the report and recommendations of the Collector and pass orders regarding selection of the candidat e keeping in view the marks obtained by each candidate according to the criteria laid down sub-rule (1).
(underlining supplied for emphasis)
Before proceeding further , it would be advantageous to observe that prior to the notification referred hereinabove, Rule 17 was in the following form:-
17. Matters to be considered in first appointment . In all first appointments of Headmen regard shall be had among other matters to:- The hereditary claims of the candidate;
(a) Extent of property in the estate, if there are no sub-divisions of the estate, and in case there be sub-divisions of the estate, the extent of the property in the sub-division for which appointment is to be made, possessed by the candidate.
(b) Services rendered to the Government by him or by his family;
(c) His personal influence, character , ability and freedom from indebtedness;
(d) The strength and importance of the community from which selection of a headman is to be made;
(e) His ability to undergo training in Civil Defence in the case of headmen in Tehsils situated along the Border .
The comparative analysis of old rule and the new one clearly signifies a materi al change in the criteria for the appointment of village headman especially with regard to hereditary claim of the candidates. It appears that by virtue of notification, the Government of Punjab, Board of Revenue, Punjab has brought the change in the rule in the light of observations recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "MAQBOOL AHMAD QURESHI " supra;
10. Bare perusal of the rule referred herei nabove postulates that there are number of factors, which are relevant for the appointment of a headman and hereditary claim of the candidates is one of those according to which 30 Marks are awarded to a candidate falling in first blood. Admittedly , the "respondent" is nephew of late Ahmed Khan village headman. This was the reason that the "respondent" was recommended by the Tehsildar concerned to be appointed as village headman on the A basis of various, preferential reasons including hereditary claim. The District Collector considered the recommendations and directed the appointment of "respondent". The order of District Collector was assailed in appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Rawalpindi, which was dismissed. The matter was then agitated before the Board of Revenue through a revision petition, which too met the same fate and was dismissed. The discretion rests with the revenue authorities to make selection for the post as per criterion laid down in the Rule 17 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968.
11. It is an established fact that "respondent" is nephew of previous village headman, on whose death, the vacancy occurred. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of "respondent" as village -headman mainly on the ground that 30 marks awarded in his favour on the basis of hereditary claim are against the law. After having examined Rule 17 ibid, it can safely be inferred that such ground of assailance is totally misconceived.
12. This Court, while exercising constitutional jurisdiction, cannot substitute its findings in order to undertake an exercise for evaluating the available material to determine the suitability of the candidates. The competent authorities in the revenue hierarchy had already considered the merits of the petitioner and "respondent" and after analyzing all pros and cons decided to appoint the "respondent" as village headman instead of petitioner . The petitioner has questioned the order of lower revenue hierarchy upto revisional forum and then filed a review but he failed to persuade any of the foras. The petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the said orders. Reference in this respect, if needed, can be made to "M. Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Aslam and others" (2013 SCMR 363) and "Haji Muhammad Zaman Khan v. Member Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore and others" ( 2013 SCMR 1595 ).
13. There are concurrent findings of revenue hierarchy about the. appointment of "respondent" as village headman, which are apparently based on proper appraisal of relevant material. The constitutional jurisdiction can only be exercised, if it appears to the Court that there is some patent illegality or jurisdic tional defect in the order under assailance. The petitioner has failed to point out any such infirmity in the impugned orders. Resultantly , this petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.