The Collector appointed Raja Alarn Khan, father of the petitioner as Lambardar in Chak No. 5-WB, Tehsil Vehari, District Multan by m4ans of his order dated 14-2-1967. An appeal was filed against it by NuT Muhammad respondent No. 2 herein which was dismissed by the Com--missioner on 26- 3-1968. Nur Muhammad filed a, revision which also met the same fate and was dismissed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue on 31-8-1968. In the revision petition filed by Nur Muhammad before Member, Board of Revenue the description of respondent was given as follows: "Raja Haji Alam Khan (deceased) son of Pir Muhammad Khan represented by Raja Irshadul Haq Kayani, P. C. S. Magistrate First-class, Rawalpindi.'"
While dismissing the revision petition the learned Member, Board of Revenue wrote as follows in paragraph 5 of his order.
"Since the respondent is dead, this revision petition has become in--fructuous and it is dismissed subject to the observation that no hereditary rights arising out of the challenged appointment of the respondent will be considered by the local Officer for fresh appoint--ment and all the applications shall be dealt with on merits."
Raja Irshadul Haq Kayani has come up in writ petition against the aforesaid order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that although his client was cited as a respondent in the case, and the learned Member, Board of Revenue dismissed the revision petition of Nur Muhammad in limine but the observations with regard to the hereditary character of the post were made in absence of the petitioner without notice and were therefore without lawful authority from that point of view. Respondent No. 2 Nur Muhammad has filed a written statement in which it has been conceded that the revision petition was dismissed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue in limine and that no notice was issued to the present petitioner. The actual pleadings of Nur Muhammad respondent in para. 4 of his written statement read as follows: Annexure 'C' is correct. No notice was legally necessary because the effect of the death of the father of petitioner during the pendency of appellate proceedings was completely to wipe out his appointment from the very inception. Appellate proceedings are in continuation of the original proceedings and any development like death of a effect and is to be construed candidate etc.; is to have the same as if the dead candidate had never been appointed by the learned Collector. As such no heritable right vested in the petitioner to claim the benefit of being an heir of the deceased Lambardar."
The aforesaid pleadings support the plea of the petitioner that at the time the teamed Member, Board of Revenue heard and disposed of the case the petitioner was neither present and nor was he heard. In section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, XVII of '1967 it is laid down that the Board of Revenue, may, at any time, on its own motion, or on an application made to it within ninety days of the passing of any order, call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by, any Revenue Officer subordinate to it. In subsection (4) of section 164 it is laid down that the Board of Revenue may, in any case called for under subsection (1) and a Commissioner may in any case called for under subsection (2) or reported to him under subsection (3) pass such orders as it or he thinks fit provided that no order shall be passed under this section reversing or modifying any proceedings or order of a subordinate Revenue Officer, affecting any person without giving such person an opportunity of being! Heard. The observations made by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, were both against the principles of natural justice as well as the statutory provisions of section 164 in so far as they purported to determine the nature of the post and the consequent claims falling therefrom, and the petitioner who is an heir of Raja Haji Alain Khan has a legitimate grievance against the same, Since the observations were made without hearing the petitioner I have no option but to declare the same to be without lawful authority and of no legal consequence against the petitioner which I hereby do. It is however, clarified that the quashment of the observations of the learned Member, Board of Revenue should not be considered as an expression of opinion one way or the other about the nature of appointment of Raja Haji Alant Khan deceased.
It will be open to the petitioner to raise such pleas as he may consider necessary with regard to the nature of the post held by his father, and similarly it will be open to the Revenue Officers concerned to take such view which in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable thereto they may prefer to take' To be more explicit, if according to the circumstances and facts of the case and the law applicable thereto the Revenue Officers want to take the same view with regard to the nature of the post of Raja Haji Alam Khan as was taken by the learned Member, Board of Revenue the present order will not be a bar in that respect, just as it will not be a bar against the petitioner to take any plea which he may have in that respect. The writ petition is accepted in these terms. There is no order as to costs.
3. It is significant to mention that the learned counsel for Nur Muhammad respondent has not opposed this petition, and submits that he has no objection if Raja Irshadal Haq Kayani is appointed as a Lambardar in the village. I am not concerned with this aspect of the matter though the Revenue Officers may take this fact into consideration for such purposes for which it may be relevant in accordance with law.