1. WAHEEDUDDN AHMAD, J.-The dispute between the parties is in respect of the lambardari of Chak No. 124/9-L, Tehsil and District Sahiwal. Previously the father of the petitioner Muhammad alias Cheena, was a permanent Lambardar of the said revenue estate. He died on the 14th June 1969 and the office fell vacant. The petitioner, being the eldest son, applied for the lambardar of the said Chak and the learned Collector dismissed his application on the ground that the estate was chiefly owned by the Government and the appointment of a Lambardar shall be made under rule 19(1) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 and appointed respondent No. 4, a retired Deputy Secretary to the Government of Pakistan. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Multan Division, which was dismissed on the 19th January 1970. A revision petition was taken before the Member, Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed on the 27th October 1970. The petitioner challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 1814 of 1970, which was dismissed by an order dated the 13th October 1971. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
2. Mr. Rafique Ahmad Bajwa, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the report of the Patwari shows that the estate in question was owned chiefly by the private proprietors and not by the State. The report submitted to the High Court shows that the same Patwari has given different figures and has shown that the estate is owned chiefly by the State. In these circumstances, the Revenue authorities were perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the estate was chiefly owned by the Government. This being a finding of fact could not be agitated in writ jurisdic-- petition. In view of this finding, rule 19 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules was applicable and the office of lambardari was not hereditary.
3. It was next urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a better candidate. Respondent No. 4 was a retired Deputy Secretary and he has obtained his appointment by adopting illegal means. The learned counsel was unable to satisfy us that a retired Deputy Secretary could not be appointed as Lambardar. The question about the selection of Lambardar is entirely within the discretion of the Revenue authorities and the High Court was perfectly justified in observing that such order cannot be interfered with under Article 98 of the Constitution. There is no force in the petition which is dismissed.