' The petitioner Bashir Ahmad has moved this Constitutional petition against the respondents praying therein that the impugned orders, dated 16-2-1987 and 27-1-1986 passed by the learned Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore respondent No. 1 and the learned Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Sheikhupura, respondent No. 2, respectively, be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.
2. The case pertains to the appointment of permanent Lambardar of village Kud Lathi, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. One Mehboob Alam was the Lambardar of the aforesaid revenue estate and he was dismissed from the office vide order, dated 26-3-1979 passed by the learned District Collector and in his place respondent No. 3, Ghulam Ahmad Awan, was appointed as a permanent Lambardar vide the order, dated 26-11-1980 passed by the Collector, Sheikhupura. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid appointment of respondent No. 3 before the learned Commissioner on the ground that no proclamation was made in the village for inviting applications. The appeal of the petitioner before the learned Commissioner succeeded and the case was remanded vide his order, dated 5-9-1981. In pursuance of the aforesaid remand order, applications for the appointment of Lambardar were invited and accordingly as many as eight persons including the petitioner and respondent No. 3, applied for the office. The Tehsildar, Sheikhupura recommended that the petitioner be appointed as permanent Lambardar of the revenue estate. However, the learned Deputy Commissioner/Collector, vide his order, dated 27-1-1986 (Annexure 'B') appointed respondent No. 3 as permanent Lambardar of the village. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Additional Commissioner, Revenue, Lahore and accordingly the learned Additional Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector and appointed the petitioner as permanent Lambardar of the village vide his order, dated 21-4-1986 (Annexure 'D'). Respondent No. 3 challenged the order, dated 21-4-1986, by filing a revision before the learned Member (Revenue)
Board of Revenue. The learned Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, after hearing the parties and considering the pros and cons of the case, accepted the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and restored that of the learned Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Sheikhupura, vide his order, dated 16-2-1987 (Annexure 'F'). The petitioner, as mentioned above, has challenged the vires of the order, dated 16-2-1987 passed by the learned Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Lahore, by means of this Constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Collector is not based on any evidence inasmuch as the provisions contained in Rule 17 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, have not been followed. It is submitted that the order passed by the learned Collector appointing respondent No. 3 as headman of the village, is definitely a perverse and arbitrary order.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that the learned Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, after considering the entire evidence and after hearing the parties, has given a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length and have perused the record very minutely. Respondent No. 3 was twice selected by two different Collectors, once in 1979 and then in 1986 for his appointment as headman of the village. In the opinion of both the learned Collectors, respondent No. 3 was a suitable candidate for appointment as Lambardar of the revenue estate.
The learned Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, after considering this aspect of the case, came to the conclusion that respondent No. 3 was the choice of the learned Collector who is the best Judge for such appointment. The learned Member Board of Revenue further observed that respondent No. 3 has been satisfactorily working as headman of the village for the last 6/7 years.
This is a finding of fact given by the competent forum after considering the evidence of the parties on their merits and demerits for the office of Lambardar. This is the function wholly reserved for its performance by the Revenue Authorities and this function has effectively been performed by the learned Collector and accordingly the choice of the learned Collector was duly confirmed by the learned Member Board of Revenue. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate before me that the impugned order, dated 16-2-1987 suffers from any Constitutional or legal infirmity. It was observed by the learned Member Board of Revenue that respondent No. 3 has a very impressive personality and he is better educated than the petitioner. This is the requirement of law. The impugned order has been passed by him with lawful authority and I do not find any substance in the petition and accordingly I proceed to dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their own costs.