CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J. Verily, earlier grandfather of the petitioner was permanent lamberdar of the concerned Revenue Estate, who held said post till his last breath. Thereafter the father and uncle of petitioner on their turn were appointed to act as lamberdar, who performed such duties throughout their lives. Then the process for selection of new lamberdar was restarted, thus on completion of codal formalities, the petitioner as such was chosen in 1991 by the District Collector. After twenty-three years of unblemished services, an application (allegedly made on behalf of "Ahalian-e-Deh") was tabled by respondent No.4 and others before the District Collector for removal of the petitioner asserting that the latter being involved in various criminal cases had lost confidence of the landowners, besides that now he was unable to perform his obligations. In pursuance thereof, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, who while making its reply not only denied such allegations, rather also pointed out that brother of respondent No.4 while posing himself to be an Advocate had maneuvered lodgment of baseless criminal cases, wherein he was never convicted. The District Collector after fetching reports from the subordinate Authorities via order dated 30.08.2014 not only removed the petitioner from his office, rather Assistant Commissioner, Burewala was directed to prepare the case for fresh appointment of lamberdar.
This order though was assailed by the petitioner via appeal and then RoR before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidations) as well as learned Member (Board of Revenue), yet were dismissed through orders dated 02.12.2015 and 17.05.2017 respectively, thus this petition for setting aside of those concurrent orders was made. It was entertained on 28.09.2017 and the operation of orders impugned therein passed by the Revenue Hierarchy was suspended. The said injunctive order was never recalled, but the District Collector vide order dated 16.10.2018 selected Fakhar Abbas (brother of respondent No.4) as lamberdar. To challenge such selection, connected W.P.
No.11488/2019 and Criminal Original No.1592-W/2018 were preferred. As similar issue is involved in all these three files, thus for all intents and purposes appropriate to decide those through this bonded decision. However, for reference, source will be file in hand.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. Verily, Rule 17 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 provides the criteria for the appointment of lamberdar to perform his obligations in terms of rule 22. There is no cavil that a headman can be dismissed from his post, but only on the grounds referred in rule 18, which are given below:-
18. Dismissal of headmen.- (1) A headman shall be dismissed when. -
(a) he has been, on conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude, sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than six months; or
(b) in an estate owned altogether or chiefly by Government, he ceases to possess the interest which led to his appointment; or
(c) in any other estate, he ceases to be a land-owner in the estate or sub-division of the estate, in respect of which he holds office; or
(d) he has mortgaged his holding and has delivered possession of the holding to the mortgagee; provided that in special cases the Collector may, with the Commissioner's sanction, retain him in his office, if he can furnish adequate security for the payment of the revenue he has to collect and for the due discharge of his duties; or
(e) his holding has been transferred under section 84 or the assessment thereof has been annulled under section 86.
(2) A headman may be dismissed when -
(a) any criminal proceedings which have been taken against him show that he is unfit to be entrusted any longer with the duties of a headman; or
(b) he is seriously embarrassed by debt, or if his unencumbered holding is so small as to disqualify him, in the Collector's opinion, for the responsibilities of a headman; or
(c) owing to age or physical or mental incapacity, or absence from the estate, he is unable to discharge his duties; or
(d) there is reason to believe that he has taken part in, or concealed illicit distillation, or the smuggling of foodgrains, cocaine, opium or charas; or
(e) he takes part in any unconstitutional agitation against the Government or fails to give his active support to the Government in the maintenance of law and order, or
(f) he neglects to discharge his duties, or is otherwise shown to be incompetent; or
(g) the estate or sub-division thereof, in respect of which he holds office, or his own holding is attached, either for an arrear of land revenue or by order of any Court.
(3) A headman shall not be dismissed unless an opportunity has been afforded to him of showing cause against the proposed action."
To understand the complaint lodged against the petitioner for his removal same in verbatim is reproduced hereunder:- Its recital confirmed that neither the petitioner lost interest in his private holding nor the lot awarded by the Government, whereas he did not cease to be landowner. It was also not an allegation that he had mortgaged his holding or the same was transferred under section 84. The complaint filed against the petitioner was silent as well to the effect that petitioner was seriously embarrassed by debt or by dint of age had become incapacitated or that he permanently had left the concerned village. The petitioner was also not charged with the allegation that he had been involved in unconstitutional activities or neglected to discharge his duties, rather mere allegation against the petitioner was that he had entangled himself in offences relating to theft and narcotics etc., besides that being confined in jail was not in the position to perform his duties. These allegations were strongly denied by the petitioner claiming those to be false having been levelled due to uncalled for influence of brother of respondent No.4. The District Collector being satisfied that petitioner was booked in various criminal cases removed him from the office via order dated 30.08.2014. The relevant conclusion is detailed as below:- "I have heard the respondent in person and perused the file. The reply dated 18.08.2014 submitted by the Lambardar Temoor Shikoh has been considered and found unsatisfactory because he failed to prove his innocence. A large number of inhabitants of the village are annoyed with the adverse repute of said Lambardar and expressed their dissatisfaction on his functioning. The Tehsildar vide report dated 04.06.2014 proved the allegations levelled against him and recommended for his removal from the office of Lambardar which was also forwarded by the Assistant Commissioner, Burewala vide late/ No.767/AC/RA dated 13.06.2014. As per police report available on the file, three cases i.e. FIR No.235/1996, 261/2003 and 260/2014 stand registered against the Lambardar. Office of Lambardar is a trust as he has to perform the role and functions as states represent in the village. Trust and honour of public office, if damaged, the functions and duties cannot be performed effectively. If local police and revenue staff is not co-operating with Lambardar as per his own statement then he can never perform his official duties relating to these departments. Moreover, charge of drug trafficking is very serious and it badly affects the repute and goodwill of Lambardar even if charges are not proved.
9. C, CNSA, 1997 is very heinous and serious offence having maximum penalty of death. FIR No.260/14 dated 02.05.2014, under section 9-C of "The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997" stands registered against the said Lambardar at Police Station Gaggo on recovery of narcotic stance, viz Charas weighing 1220 grams which disqualifying him. He remained behind the bars in District. Jail Vehari w.e.f. 02.05.2014 to 10.06.2014 and was released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala vide order dated 10.06.2014. He could not rebut the allegations levelled against him except the stance taken that he is being politically victimized and had been acquitted in one case due to benefit of doubt. The respondent bears no meritorious reputation in the vicinity, therefore, keeping in view the situation, the services of said Lambardar are no more required.
Thus, Temoor Shikoh son of is hereby removed from the office of Lambardar, Chak No.229/EB Tehsil Burewala District Vehari and state land (lambardari grant) in his possession is resumed in favour of State. The Assistant Commissioner, Burewala is directed to take necessary steps for the ejectment of respondent and to give state land in question on superdari to a suitable person who will maintain the account as per law. The General Assistant (Revenue), is directed to prepare the case for fresh appointment of Lambardar Deh in Chak No.229/EB, Burewala accordingly."
The conclusion in ditto was adopted by Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) while dismissing appeal of the petitioner on 02.12.2015. The para No.4 for ready reference is reproduced here:- `Arguments heard. Record perused. There were serious allegations which were proved against the appellant by the Tehsildar, Burewala vide report dated 04.06.2014 and recommended for his removal from the office of Lambardar which was also forwarded by the Assistant Commissioner, Burewala vide letter No.767/AC/RA dated 13.06.2014. However, the District Collector, Vehari observed the process and served a notice dated 02.07.2014 upon the appellant to show cause within seven days but he failed as such a notice of personal hearing dated 11.08.2014, as provided under section 18 (3) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968, was served.
The reply tendered by the appellant was found unsatisfactory by the lower court and passed the impugned order. As per police report available on the file, three cases i.e. FIR No.235/1996, 261/2003 and 260/2014 were registered against the appellant. FIR No.260/2014 dated 02.05.2014, under section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 stands registered against the appellant at Police Station Gaggo on recovery of narcotic stance, viz Charas weighing 1220 grams which disqualify the appellant from the post of Lamberdar which is still pending in the Trial Court. The charge of drug trafficking is very serious and it badly effects the repute and goodwill of the appellant even if charges are not proved. The charge of 9-C, CNSA, 1997 is very heinous and serious offence having maximum penalty of death. The lower court passed the impugned order with full justification and the appellant has failed to prove his innocence. I find no irregularity or infirmity in the impugned order which is upheld and the instant appeal, having no legal force, is hereby dismissed."
The learned Member (Board of Revenue) said nothing more while regretting RoR of the petitioner through order dated 17.05.2017. All three Revenue Authorities removed the petitioner just for mere registration of criminal cases, whereas he was never convicted or sentenced against any offence.
Syed Muhammad Najmul Saqib Mumtaz, learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court towards some of the FIRs referred in the complaint succeeded to persuade that the petitioner was even not nominated therein, whereas in rest of the cases, he had been acquitted.
When confronted, Ch. Muhammad Riaz Jahania, worthy counsel of private respondent No. 4, in all fairness, conceded that presently not a single criminal case is pending adjudication against the petitioner, rather he had already been exonerated or acquitted in all those matters. In such a situation, per Clause (a) of Rule 18(1) ibid, the petitioner was not liable to be disqualified, whereas sub-rule 2(a) was also not applicable, therefore removal of the petitioner was not backed by any of the grounds provided in relevant Rule 18.
4. The further drastic aspect of the case was that despite operation of removal orders passed by the Revenue Hierarchy against petitioner was suspended by this Court on 28.09.2017, which still was operative when on 16.10.2018, the brother of respondent No. 4 was appointed as lamberdar, therefore being illegal, unlawful, coram non judice/ultra vires as well as contumacious act cannot be validated or supported.
5. As a corollary of above discussion, both constitutional petitions are allowed, orders impugned therein are hereby set aside, selection of respondent No. 4 as lamberdar is declared to be of no legal effect, whereas petitioner is restored to his post. It is clarified that apart from above allegations, if any others are found available to the District Collector for removal of the petitioner, then he while providing him right of audience may make any fresh judicious order. As the main lis have been decided in favour of the petitioner, thus the tagged criminal original having lost its efficacy accordingly is disposed of as well.