FAZL-I-MAHMOOD, J.-This writ petition is directed against the order of Member, Board of Revenue dated 30.12.1985 passed in review jurisdiction under section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957.
2. In the matter of appointment of Lambardars the High Court normally does not interfere as this primarily is a matter falling within their discretionary field. The present case is being argued purely on a jurisdictional ground rather than the Question of exercise of discretion to appoint or not to appoint a person as a Lambardar for revenue land collection on the basis of several criteria laid down by the Land Revenue Act and the Rules. The learned counsel elaborates that in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, a writ would lie to interfere with excess and assumption of jurisdiction. He submits that by the order of the Member, Board of Revenue in revision dated 20.3.1983, the petitioner's appointment as Lambardar had been upheld and the learned Member, Board of Revenue had refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the tribunals below. Against this order, Haji Ilam Din filed a review petition before the Member, Board of Revenue, who while accepting the same recorded the finding that Haji Ilam Din had preferential right of primogeniture which seemingly was overlooked when the case was considered by the predecessor Member Board of Revenue. It has been further held by the learned Member, Board of Revenue in review that the check had an area of 40 squares and needed an additional post of Lambardar, particularly in view of the sharp division of the community into tribes of Jats and Baluchs. In view of these considerations, it was ordered that the village should be sub-divided into to pattis; one for Jats and other for Baluchs. Haji Ilam Din, who is respondent in this writ petition was appointed as Lambardar for the Patti of Jats. The second post of Lambardari was sanctioned for the Patti of ' Baluch. After having done so, the Member, Board of Revenue went on to hold that fresh applications should be called for the Patti of Baluchs and appointment made according to the Land Revenue Rules.
3. It is admitted before this Court by both the learned counsel appearing for the contending parties that in so far as the appointment of respondent is concerned, it was correctly confined to the patti of Jats. It is also admitted that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, he is from Baluch tribe and his holding also falls in the Patti of Baluchs. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the jurisdiction of the learned Member, Board of Revenue came to an end in review when he created to pattis and afforded relief to Ilam Din by appointing him against the patti for Jats tribe. Therefore, the lis before him came to an end and no infirmity could be said to have been attached to petitioner's appointment who was considered fit on merits to be Lambardar for the whole village. The petitioner was content to be confined to the patti in which persons belonging to Baluch tribe figured predominantly.
4. Mr. M. Abdus Salim, learned counsel for the respondent concedes that in so far as the grievances of the respondent Ilam Din regarding his non- appointment as Lambardar were concerned, they stood redressed and, thereupon the order passed in review by the learned Member setting at naught the orders of appointment of Taj Mahmood petitioner for even the other patti was in excess of his jurisdiction. The respondent had no grievance for the patti of Baluch tribe and the learned Member had no valid basis to modify the order of his predecessor in respect thereto.
5. In view of the consensus, the impugned order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue to the extent of depriving the petitioner from Lambardari for the Patti of Baluchs, appears to be suffering from visible infirmity and is, accordingly, set aside. No one from the Board of Revenue has turned up despite service to contest the matter. The proceedings are ordered ex-parte qua it. Both the contesting parties are satisfied. Case is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.