' The facts in brief, are that Roshan Din, grandfather of respondent No,2, Khadim Rasul was a Lambardar of the Revenue Estate Raipur Tehsil Shakargarh District Sialkot. After death of Roshan Din, his son, Ghulam Rasool succeeded him as Headman of the village. The said respondent owns and possesses 12/1-2 Acres of agricultural land in District Faisalabad. Allegation against him was that he did not own any land in village Raipur and that he had shifted his residence permanently to District Faisalabad in order to look after his land there. On the death of Ghulam Rasool Lambardar, the controversy arose between the parties over the office. Learned District Collector appointed Muhammad Shafi as Headman of the revenue estate and ignored respondent No,2 for the office.
Appointment of the petitioner as such was confirmed by the learned Commissioner, Gujranwala Division on appeal. On revision learned Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue interfered and set aside both the orders of the learned District Collector and learned Commissioner and appointed respondent No,2 Khadim Rasul as Lambardar of the village following the rule of primogeniture. It was observed that respondent No,2 alone was entitled to be appointed as Headman of the village.
2. Main contention of the learned counsel is that respondent No,2 does not reside in the village and as such under law he cannot be appointed as Headman of the said Revenue Estate under any circumstances. In the first round of litigation, a clear stand was taken by respondent No,2, before the learned Member, Board of Revenue that during the life time of his father he had been living in District Faisalabad and that he had permanently started living in the revenue State of Raipur where he had 15 Kanals and 17 Marlas of agricultural land after the death of his father. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned Advocate-General states that the order passed by the Member Board of Revenue is well-reasoned and that no interference is called for under the law. Attention of the Court has been drawn to Rule 18 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, to show that in case it is proved that respondent No,2 does not reside after his appointment as Lambardar in the village, his appointment as such can be challenged under the said provision. There is considerable force in the argument of the learned counsel. I am convinced to hold that the impugned order dated 20-1- 1991 was passed in accordance with law. No case has been made out for interference in the matter.
It is a finding of fact arrived at by competent Court. Learned counsel was unable to point out any jurisdictional defect in the impugned order. It is established that the respondent does reside in the village Raipur where he has some agricultural land to cultivate. In his presence, nobody else can be given the office of Lambardar under the well-established rule of primogeniture. This principle has been upheld by the learned Member, Board of Revenue. The order thus appears to be just and proper. However, if it at any stage, it comes to light that respondent No,2 after his appointment as Lambardar has ceased to live in Revenue Estate of Raipur, his appointment as such can certainly challenged under Rule 18 (supra). With this observation there is no substance in the petition which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.