' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a Judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 22-1-1994 whereby Writ Petition No,2772/91 filed by Haji Abdul Majeed respondent No,2 herein was allowed, order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue respondent No,1 appointing the present appellant as Lambardar was declared to be without lawful authority and the case was remanded to respondent No,1 for re-decision in accordance with law.
2. Facts strictly relevant for the decision of this appeal, briefly stated, are that Abdul Rasheed, permanent Lambardar of Chak No,61/ML, Tehsil and District Bhakkar, resigned from his office on 27- 7-1986. To fill up the vacancy, applications were invited by the Revenue Authorities. To begin with, as many as 27 persons applied for the post but ultimately only 9 candidates including the appellant and respondents Nos.2 to 4 herein remained in the field. Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Bhakkar, by his order dated 26-3-1987 appointed Abbas Ali Shah respondent as Lambardar of the village. His appointment was challenged by his rivals through five separate appeals. Commissioner, Sargodha Division, vide his order dated 24-5-1987 accepting the appeal of Haji Abdul Majeed respondent No,2 appointed him as Lambardar and dismissed the remaining four appeals.
3. Aggrieved by order of the Commissioner, the present appellant preferred an appeal while respondents Nos.3 to 5 brought the matter in revision before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab who after considering the respective claims of all the contestants before him dismissed the revision petitions of Abbas Ali Shah, Hassan Muhaimnad and Muhammad Din respondents but finding the appellant as the most suitable candidate allowed his appeal and ac Jointed him as Lambardar of the Chak vide order dated 27-8-1989. The learned Member when discussing the case of each candidate on merits found as follows:- "Abbas Ali Shah, the choice of the Collector, belongs to a minority community and had no influence over the majority tribe of Jats of the estate. He is also an old man of 63. He was residing at Islamabad and as such could not be of much use to the Administration. The learned Commissioner had, therefore, rightly set aside his appointment.
' Hassan Muhammad petitioner belongs to minority community and has no special merits.
Therefore, he was rightly ignored by the lower Courts. I see no reasons to interfere with the concurrent findings against him.
' With regard to the case of Muhammad Din, le Collector had observed that he was in litigation with Government over State land. The Commissioner had also ignored him. There is also nothing special to recommend him to the post.
"Learned Commissioner while selecting Abdul Majeed as Lambardar has mainly observed that he was not an absentee as stated by the Collector. On the other hand the solid documentary evidence presented by petitioners clearly shows that he has his business at Multan and also resides there. I need not re-count the evidence in this regard as the same has been mentioned in detail at para. 8 ante. The Collector had rightly held that Haji Abdul Majeed was not residing in the Chak. The appointment of an absentee candidate as Lambardar was a perverse decision.
' Finally Muhainmad Yousaf petitioner is left in the field. He belongs to a majority tribe of Jats. He is an enteric young man of 38 years. He is a social worker. His holdings are also sufficient to meet the requirements of Zar-s.:=Ihart. In the circumstances of the case he is the most suitable candidate for the post of Labrador."
4. Abdul Majeed and Muhammad Din respondents filed review petitions but with no better result as the same were dismissed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue vide order dated 11-12-1991 holding that review did not amount to an appeal or revision and the Court reviewing the order "cannot sit in judgment on its own order or that of its predecessor in so far as the appreciation of evidence is concerned. All the grounds taken before me by the learned counsel of the petitioners stand already adjudicated upon in the impugned order and it is not open to me to give findings on these grounds afresh without first establishing whether there was any apparent mistake or error in the impugned order".
5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Haji Abdul Majeed respondent filed Writ Petition No,2772 of 1991 in the High Court and Muhammad Din respondent also approached the High Court through Writ Petition No,5588 of 1991. Since Abdul Majeed was non- suited by the learned Member, Board of Revenue mainly on the ground that he was not residing in the Chak and being an absentee was not eligible for appointment, he assailed this finding with reference to some documents placed on record before the High Court. He also raised a point that the appointment of Lambardar in the instant case was governed by rule 19(2) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968 and the selection was to be made having regard to the matters specified in rule 17 viz. The extent of property in the estate; services rendered to the Government by the candidate, or his family; his 'personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness and the strength and importance of the community from which selection is to be made. Grievance was made by Haji Abdul Majeed that when passing the impugned order, the learned member ignored these considerations.
6. The appellant raised a preliminary objection in the High Court that in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction, the High Court had no authority to interfere with the impugned order of the Board of Revenue which being the final authority in the Revenue hierarchy has exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of appointment of Lambardar. The learned Judge in the High Court relying upon a judgment of this Court reported in PLD 1991 SC 531 repelled this objection holding that the High Court has the jurisdiction to examine the vires of the impugned orders of Revenue Authorities including that of Board of Revenue passed in Lambardari cases so as to determine whether they suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record and if it so finds, it will declare the orders impugned as without lawful authority and remand the case for re-decision in accordance with law. The learned Judge then proceeded to examine the case on merits with the observation that the post of Lambardar in the present case having fallen vacant as a result of resignation of previous Lambardar, it was a case of first appointment governed by Rule 17 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968 and that judged in the light of the relevant qualifications prescribed in the said rule, Abdul Majeed respondent was better qualified as compared with his rival candidates as the land owned by him in the estate "is much large in area than the land of Muhammad Din petitioner and Muhammad Yousaf respondent He is an ex-serviceman, being a retired personnel from Pakistan Air Force and as such he has rendered service to the Government. His rival candidates do not possess any such qualification. He is Matriculate and in that context his this qualification is equal to that of Muhammad Din petitioner but he is certainly better qualified as compared to Muhammad Yousaf respondent, who studied up to primary". With regard to the finding of the learned Member, Board of Revenue that Abdul Majeed respondent had his business at Multan where he also resided and as such was an absentee from Chak No,61/ML, the learned Judge observed "I think, he failed to appreciate that a person can be resident of more than one place. Haji Abdul Majeed petitioner might be carrying on some business at Multan and may also have some residential property there, but he decidedly owns a big chunk of land in the area of Chak No,61/ML, Tehsil and District Bhakkar, and his service record, besides the identity card, indicate that he is resident of that village. So, ordinarily he could not be discarded on the grounds of being an absentee from or non-resident of, the village. The post Of Sarbrah Lambardar is meant for meeting such like situation and this aspect of the matter was not considered by the learned Member, Board of Revenue at all". Taking this view of the matter, the learned Judge held that the learned Member, Board of Revenue while passing the impugned orders "did not correctly apply the law embodied in rule 17 (ibid) and it was an error of law apparent on the record". Writ petition, of Abdul Majeed respondent herein was accordingly accepted, the impugned orders to his extent were declared to be without lawful authority and the case was demanded to the learned Member, Board of Revenue "for decision in accordance with law". Writ petition of Muhammad Din respondent was, however, dismissed. This was viding the judgment impugned herein.
7. Learned, counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the orders passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue did not suffer from any jurisdictional or legal. Error and were, therefore, not open to review in Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the learned Member was perfectly justified in ignoring the respondent Abdul Majeed for the reason that he was doing business at Multan where he was also residing and as such he was an absentee from the Chak for which the Lambardar was to be appointed which finding, according to the learned counsel, was duly supported by the record. This finding, in the submission of the learned counsel, being purely one of fact;; was not open to interference in writ jurisdiction and the learned Judge erred in upsetting the same and substituting his own finding for that of the learned Member. Learned counsel also sought to assail the impugned judgment by contending that the learned Judge in the High Court having recorded definite findings with reference to the qualifications mentioned in rule 17 of the Land Revenue Rules with further observation that the respondent was a resident of the Chak, remand of the case to the Member, Board of Revenue for decision was a mere formality as nothing was left to be decided by the learned Member. Learned counsel for the respondent Abdul Majeed, of course,-supported the impugned judgment.
8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions, made by the learned counsel and have also examined the relevant documents placed on the present record. It is manifest from the judgment of the learned Member,' Board of Revenue that he was fully cognizant of the provisions of rule 17 of the Land Revenue Rules and the qualifications of the candidates for appointment as Lambardar mentioned therein and he took note of the merits/demerits of rival candidates/parties canvassed before him. It was urged before the learned member that Muhammad Yousaf, the present appellant 'obtained a loan of Rs,50,000 from A.D.B.P. afSunst his landed property and could not offer full security tor Tar-e-Bliart. The learned Member, however, held that his holding was sufficient to meet the requirements of Zar-e-Bhart. The learned Member also took note of the various qualifications of Abdul Majeed respondent viz. That he belonged to majority tribe and owned 222 Kanals of land which was quite sufficient to serve as security for Zar-e-Bhart: that he was a Matriculate and also an ex-serviceman but finding that he had his business at Multan and also resided there and was not residing in the Chak set aside his appointment as Lambardar as in the view of the learned Member, "the appointment of an absentee candidate as Lambardar was a perverse decision". This finding of the learned Member, it may be stated, was based on the voters' list and copy of Register P.T.I. For the year 1983-84 showing the residence of the respondent at Multan. Reliance was also placed on the visiting card of the respondent indicating his business address at Multan.
' The learned Judge in the High Court did not question the factual position that Abdul Majeed respondent was doing business at Multan and also resided there. He in fact accepted this position by observing that Abdul Majeed might be carrying on some business at Multan and may also have residential property there though he held that since he owned the landed property in the Chak and his service record and identity card also mentioned his residence in the Chak, he was also resident of the village/Chak. It was accordingly held by the learned Member that he could not be ignored on the ground of being an absentee from or non-resident of the Chak. This view of the learned Judge, it may be stated with respect, cannot be countenancedA person may well be a permanent resident of a village or a Chak for which a Lambardar is to be appointed but if he is doing his business on some other job elsewhere and also normally resides there, he will be an absentee for the purpose of appointments as Lambardar as he will not be available to perform day to day functions/duties attached to the office of Lambardar. This disqualification, it may be stated, is envisaged in Rule 18(2)(c) of the Land Revenue Rules. The duties of Headmen are prescribed in Rule 22 which provides, inter alia that in addition to the duties imposed upon Headmen under any other law, a Headman shall--
(i) collect the land revenue and all sums recoverable as land revenue from the estate in which he holds office, collects rents and other income of the common land;
(ii) report to the Tehsildar all encroachments on roads (including village roads) or on Government's waste lands and injuries to, or appropriation of, Government property situated within the estate;
(iii) report any injury to public buildings in the estate;
(iv) implement, to the best of his ability, any orders that he may receive from the Collector, requiring him to furnish information or to assist in providing, on payment, supplies or means of transport for troops or for officers of Government on duty;
(v) assist, in such manner as the Collector may from time to time direct, at all crop inspections, recording of mutations, surveys, preparation of records of rights or other revenue business within the estate.
(vi) attend the summons of all authorities having jurisdiction in the estate; assist, when so required by them, all officers of the Government in the discharge of their duties; furnish all relevant information in this behalf;
(vii) report to the Patwari any outback of disease among human beings or cattle and the deaths of any right-holders in the estate, or sub-division of the estate, in which he holds office;
(viii) report any breach or cut in a Government irrigation canal or channel, to the nearest Canal Officer, Zilladar or Canal Patwari;
(ix) under the general or special directions of the Collector, to use his good offices to assist all officers of Government and other persons, duly authorized by the Collector, in the enrolment of military personnel.
9. Nature of the duties of a Lambardar as shown above is such that he has to be present all the time in the village or the Chak for which he is appointed so as to discharge his functions efficiently, adequately and properly. The learned Judge having accepted that the respondent was doing his business at Multan and was also residing there, he was undoubtedly an absentee from the Chak situate in. Tehsil and District Bhakkar far away from Multan and he would not have been able to perform the functions and discharge the duties assigned to a Lambardar. Law is fairly well-settled that appointment of Lambardar rests in the discretion of the Revenue Authorities and as a general rule, an absentee is not to be appointed as a Lambardar particularly when a suitable candidate is available. The view taken by the learned member was in accord with the settled law and based on correct appreciation of legal and factual position and the learned Judge was not quite right in taking the contrary view and holding that the respondent is not to be discarded simply because he had his permanent abode in the Chak. Needless to observe that the question of absenteeism only arises when a person is permanently settled at one place but he normally resides at a different place in connection with his business or employment.
10. As regards the possibility of appointing "Sarbarah Lambardar" to which reference has been made by the learned Judge, suffice it to observe that this matter again is in the discretion of the Collector and it is ordinarily not to be resorted to at the time of making the first appointment and that too to get over the disqualification arising from non-residence. Rules on the subject do not contemplate appointment of a nqn-resident/absentee landowner as a Lambardar and then simultaneously provide him the substitute (Sarbarah). Rule 26 which appears to be the relevant rule provides that where an existing headman/Lambardar is unable to perform his duties for reasons stated therein, a "Sarbarah Lambardar" may be appointed.
11. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are satisfied that the learned Member, Board of Revenue attended to all the relevant aspects of the matter, legal as also factual, in ignoring/setting aside the appointment of Abdul Majeed respondent and appointing the present appellant finding him the most suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar. Before concluding, we would like to observe and it has been laid down time and again tlaat nobody has a vested right to be appointed as Lambardar and tliat the matter of appointment is essentially an administrative function which rests exclusively in the domain of revenue authorities who because of their experience and training are in a better position to make a suitable choice than the Courts of general jurisdiction. Refer Ghulam Hussain v. Ghulam Muhammad and another (1976 SCM R 75).
12. Upshot of the above discussion is that the learned Member, Board of Revenue could not be said to have committed any error of law or misapplied the law so as to warrant interference by the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court is set aside with no order as to costs.