' Through this writ petition the vires of the order, dated 25-6-1995 are impugned. The said order was passed by Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore whereby respondent No,1 was appointed as Lumberdar of Village Bhollian, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Narowal.
2. Brief facts leading to the present petition are that in Village Bhollian one Ghaseeto was Evacuee Lumberdar and Mehr Din father of Sadar Din respondent No,1, a land owner in the estate was appointed as Lumberdar against evacuee vacant office and on his demise respondent No,1 was appointed Lumberdar of the estate. Proceedings for appointment of permanent Lumberdar were initiated at the instance of present writ petitioner who secured the reports from the local authorities. Both the petitioner and respondent No,1 were candidates. The local Revenue Officer/Tehsildar and the Assistant Commissioner/Collector of the Sub-Division recommended the appointment of Sadar Din as permanent Lumberdar on the basis of his satisfactory performance as Lumberdar throughout. The Collector of the District while passing order on 5-4-1993 ignored the recommendations of the Tehsildar and Assistant Commissioner and appointed the writ petitioner as permanent Lumberdar of the estate on the ground that Sadar Din respondent was an aged and illiterate person whereas Muhammad Baloch was young in age, healthy and to some extent literate and the following is the reading of the operative part:-- "Muhammad Baloch has preference over Sadar Din only due to Sadar Din's advanced age, less in numbers (sic) and of his being illiterate."
' This order was challenged before the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division who dismissed the appeal but in revision Member, Board of Revenue passed an elaborate order and relying on "Muhammad Nawaz and others v. Muhammad Akhlaq" (PLD 1993 Revenue 44) he held that the terms "permanent" and "temporary" with regard to appointment of Lumberdar have not been used either in Land Revenue Act, 1967 or in West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 except in Rule 21 of Rules, 1968 which contingency was non-existent in the present case. It was held vide impugned order dated 25-6-1995 that the appointment of Lumberdar was made either under Rule 17 or Rule 19 and Sadar Din being already a Lumberdar having succeeded his father could not be removed by declaring him as a temporary Lumberdar and especially so when he had served for 25 years as such.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it was a case of first appointment and Rule 17 was to be looked into by the Revenue Officers and that the petitioner was head and shoulders above Sadar Din in qualification as mentioned under Rule 17 referred supra. He said that this Court had Constitutional jurisdiction to consider the vires of the orders of the Revenue Authorities where the error of law is apparent on the face of record and relied on Haji Noorwar Jan v. Senior Member, Board of Revenue, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 4 others (PLD 1991 SC 531).
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the orders of the Collector, Commissioner and the impugned order of the Member, Board of Revenue in the present case. There appears to be no error apparent on record. There was nothing on record to suggest that the father of respondent No,1 was appointed as temporary Lumberdar after partition. No order appointing Sadar Din respondent No,1 as temporary Lumberdar has been placed on the record and mere assertion by Muhammad Baloch petitioner before the Revenue Authorities, that respondent No,1 was temporary Lumberdar and that the office was still to be filled permanently, cannot be given any credence while considering the vires of the orders under Constitutional jurisdiction and therefore, I am of the humble view that the dictum as laid down in PLD 1991 SC 531 was not applicable to the present case. It was rather the case of "Abdul Ghafoor v.
M. B. R. And another (1982 SCM R 202) which was relevant to the facts of this case. The office of Lumberdar was a selection post and the selection is the administrative, prerogative of the revenue authorities who, of course, are to follow the rules made in this behalf.
5. Revenue Officers, the Assistant Commissioner/Collector Sub-Division were Revenue Officers who may be called the people at the spot. They had the long experience of dealing with respondent No,1 as Headman of the estate. Respondent No,1 had, at the same time, hereditary claim as his father had been working as Lumberdar of the estate till his death. The Member, Board of Revenue had unfettered and unabridged jurisdiction to pass orders of appointment and in the present case he rightly held that no office was vacant which could be filled in. The appointment as Lumberdar was not a vested right. As the appointment of Lumberdar is ordinarily made for fiscal purpose and for assisting the Government functionaries, therefore, the same could not be claimed as a right by the writ petitioner. The petitioner is not an aggrieved person. Reliance is placed on "Ahmad Din v.
Member, Board of Revenue and another" (1983 CLC 1385) and "Ch. Ghulam Ullah v. B.O.R., Lahore and 4 others" (1984 CLC 2973).
6. In view of the above this petition has no merits and the same is dismissed in limine.
7. During the arguments it was stressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No,1 had lost his right, if at all he had one, of being appointed as Lumberdar due to his becoming landless. My attention was drawn by him to Annexure of the petition. The same was the copy of Mutation No,152 attested by the Revenue Officer regarding sale of land by respondent No,1 in favour of his sons and strangers. The vendor at the time of attestation of the mutation was identified by Muhammad Baloch, the petitioner. Had respondent No,1 become landless in fact, there was no reason for the present petitioner to refrain from bringing the fact to the notice of Member, Board of Revenue. There could also be no reason for respondent No,1 to sell out his land and that too in the name of his own sons during the pendency of the revision petition before M.B.R., a few days after filing the same.
8. A copy of this order shall be sent immediately to Assistant Commissioner, Shakargarh who shall hold an enquiry by summoning Sadar Din respondent No,1 and in case he denies the sale aforesaid, a criminal case shall be got registered against Muhammad Baloch and concerned revenue officials for committing the offence, under the laws for the time being in force in Pakistan.
The report of the enquiry shall be furnished to this Court within one month.