This Constitutional petition is directed against the order dated 4-4-1993 of the Member, Judicial 11, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore appointing Safdar Ali respondent as Lambardar of Chak No.188- R.B. Tehsil and District Faisalabad.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Chajju Lambardar of Chak in question died issueless on 21- 3-1983 whereupon applications for the appointment of a new Lambardar were invited and by order dated 18-2-1984 Muhammad Afzal was appointed as such by A.C./Collector, Faisalabad. However, by order dated 27-8-1984 the case was remanded by Commissioner, Faisalabad Division and thereafter by order dated 2-6-1987 the District Collector, Faisalabad appointed Taj Muhammad as Lambardar. Appeal was filed against this order and the same was rejected by Commissioner, Faisalabad Division vide his order dated 22-2-1988. However, on revision the Member, Board of Revenue vide the order dated 4-4-1993 appointed Safdar Ali respondent as Lambardar and this order is impugned in this writ petition.
3. 1 have heard the learned counsel at length and according to him the petitioner is entitled to the appointment of Lambardar on the ground that his land is sufficient to satisfy the security, that the deceased was a member of his Baradari, that the Collector exercised his choice in his favour and that the community factor also goes in his favour.
4. It emerges from the record that petitioner was appointed Lambardar by the Tribunals below mainly on the ground that he belongs to Jat Sindhu Baradari and ignored the respondent who was of Jat Dumana Baradari. The learned Member has not approved this view and concluded that the learned Collector has legally erred in holding that community means sub-caste. Criticising this finding the learned Member, Board of Revenue observed as under:-- "It is a well-settled law that it is the community as a whole and not the caste or the sub-caste which is to be taken into consideration while making appointment of a Lambardar."
While deciding in favour of the respondent the learned Member, Board of Revenue held that "Safdar Ali is not only better educated than Taj Muhammad but has more landed property than the respondent Taj Muhammad. Safdar Ali is also more influential person than the respondent Taj Muhammad because, he is member of Ushr Zakat Committee, President of Cooperative Development Society. He is stated to be a Director of the Sugarcane Committee". Further held that he has been acquitted in all the criminal cases and, therefore, this aspect could not go against him. On this consideration he appointed Safdar Ali respondent as a Lambardar of the village in question.
5. After reading the impugned order and also the order dated 2-6-1987 affirmed by the Commissioner on 22-2-1988, I find that the learned Collector has given preference to the petitioner on caste basis: It is observed in his order that "as regards Safdar Ali candidate, although his holding is more than any of the other candidates but he is "Jet Dumana" by caste and, therefore, does not belong to the majority Baradari of the Chak". It was further considered that the number of land owners belonging to his sub-caste are reported to be just a quarter of the total number. As to the qualification of the respondent it was observed that "Safdar Ali was well-educated and very active in social activities but there was a blot on his character on account of the criminal cases in which he has remained involved".
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and after going through the orders passed in the case including the impugned. order 1 find that the order of the Member, Board of Revenue appointing respondent Safdar Ali as a Lambardar can only be declared without lawful authority if there is a jurisdictional error or the order suffers from legal ,infirmity. Admittedly the deceased Lambardar died issueless and there is no hereditary claims in favour of any one of the parties and legal approach of the Collector that the appointment should be made on the basis of caste or sub-caste is on the face of it illegal and it has rightly been held by the Member, Board of Revenue that the community as a whole has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of appointment. This finding of the respondent Member, Board of Revenue cannot be said to be in any manner arbitrary or without jurisdiction.
It has been held .in Haji Noorwar Jan v. Senior Member, Board of Revenue, N.-W.F.P. Peshawar and 4 others (PLD 1991 SC 531) that the Board of Revenue is at the apex of the Revenue authorities.
In view of above the order of respondent No.l appointing.Safdar Ali as Lambardar prevails and there is no warrant for any interference in the impugned order. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is rejected in limine.