JUDGMENT SHAIKH ABDUR RAZZAQ, J. - Briefly stated the facts are that village Sultanpur Tehsil and District Jhelum had four lambardars. Major- portion of the land in the said village was acquired for the construction of Mangla Dam, as a result of which revenue of the village Sultanpur was considerably reduced. Accordingly the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division on the recommendations of the District Collector reduced the posts of lambardars of said village from four to one vide his order dated 25.11.1969. Raja Fazal Dad son of Atta Muhammad Khan lambardar of village Sultanpur died and Ali Asghar Khan respondent No. 2 and the younger son of deceased lambardar moved an application for appointment as the successor of his deceased father. Raja Abbas, Raza Khan and Raja Sher Ahmad Khan relinquished their claim in favour of Ali Asghar Khan respondent No. 2. On the recommendations of the Tehsildar and the Assistant Commissioner/Collector Sub-Division, Jhelum the District Collector appointed Ali Asghar Khan as lambardar in place of his deceased father/lambardar. One Habib Ullah filed an appeal against the said appointment before the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, for appointing him as lambardar on the ground that he had been working as temporary lambardar of Sultanpur. During the pendency of said appeal Habib Ullah died and his son Shabhir Ahmad, the present petitioner, moved an application for permission to implead him as successor of his deceased father Habib Ullah. The said appeal was rejected by the Commissioner vide order dated 22.6.1994 with the observations that the appeal had abated on account of the death of Habib Ullah. The petitioner felt aggrieved of order dated 22.6.1994 and filed a revision petition, in the Board of Revenue, Punjab which came up for hearing before Syed Ishrat Ali Shah, Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue, Punjab who vide his order dated 6.2.1998 dismissed the same. The petitioner did not feel contented with the order dated 6.2.1998 and filed a review petition under Section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957 which was again dismissed vide order dated 24.5.1999. The petitioner has felt aggrieved of the said orders and has filed the instant writ petition praying that order dated 22.6.1994 being illegal and void be set aside and has further prayed that the matter be remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for inquiring into the matter and deciding the same afresh after affording an opportunity to the parties.
2. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that initially there were four lambardars of village Sultanpur and as a result of order dated 25.11.1969 by the Commissioner the said posts were reduced from four to one, that vide order dated 11.4.1983 Habib Ullah father of the petitioner, was appointed as temporary lambardar of the village and he was debarred from moving an application for appointment as permanent lambardar of the said village, that on 11.10.1992 respondent No. 2 moved an application for appointment as lambardar which was processed and consequently he was appointed as lambardar vide order dated 17.1.1993, that an appeal against the said order was filed before the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi which was dismissed having been abated as a result of the death of Habib Ullah (father of the petitioner) vide order dated 22.6.1994, that the order of the Commissioner dated 22.6.1994 dismissing the appeal on the ground of abatement is not warranted by law as proceedings could not be abated on account of marriage or death as required by rule 5 of Land Revenue Rules, 1968 which reads as follows:- "5. Proceedings not to abate on death or marriage of party -- The death of one of the parties to a proceedings before a Revenue Officer or, in a proceedings to which a female is a party, her marriage, shall not cause the proceeding to abate; and the Revenue Officer before whom the proceeding is held shall have power to make the successor-in-interest of the deceased person or the married female, a party thereto."
4. That the order of the Commissioner is an order passed by a Revenue Officer as contemplated by Section 7 of Land Revenue Act and as such order dated 22.6.1994 passed by the Commissioner is not warranted by law, that as the appeal had not abated so the subsequent order of the Board of Revenue dated 6.2.1998 and order dated 24.5.1999 passed by him in the review petition filed by the petitioner are illegal, void ab initio and liable to be set aside. He further submitted that even the appointment of lambardar on the ground of hereditary-ship has been declared as repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam and has placed reliance upon Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi Vs. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (PLJ 2000 S.C. 382 (Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction). He thus submitted that the petition be accepted and the matter be remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Jhelum for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law.
5. Conversely the stand of the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is that Habib Ullah, father of the present petitioner, was appointed as temporary lambardar vide order dated 11.4.1983, that respondent No. 2 moved an application for appointment of lambardar in place of his father who had died and as such his application was processed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector who recommended his appointment vide order dated 3.4.1995 which was put up before the Deputy Commissioner/Collector who endorsed his view vide order dated 5.4.1995, that no appeal or revision was ever filed against order dated 5.4.1995 and as such it had attained finality, that appeal filed by Habib Ullah (father of the petitioner) abated on account of his death and accordingly the same was dismissed by the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi vide order dated 22.6.1994, that the provisions of rule 5 of Land Revenue Rules, 1968 are not attracted in the instant case, that in case of appointment of lambardar no vested right can be claimed by any person and relevant authorities in the performance of their administrative functions are competent to appoint any person whom they consider fit for the said job and placed reliance upon Abdul Ghafoor Vs. Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue and another (1982 SCM R 202), Ghulam Hussain Vs. Ghulam Muhammad and another (1976 SCM R 75) and Shaukat Ali and another Vs. Muhammad Shaft and 2 others (1991 SCM R 1504).
Admittedly the appeal filed by Habib Ullah (father of the petitioner) was dismissed by the Commissioner, Rawalpindi on account of death of Habib Ullah holding the same to have abated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the said proceedings did not abate and has referred to rule 5 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, a reference to which has also been made. A perusal of rule 5 shows that it falls in Part-II pertaining to procedure of Revenue Officers. The appointment of village Headman (lambardar) falls within Part-Ill of the rules referred above. Rule 17 relates to matter to be considered in case of first appointment of lambardar whereas rule 18 pertains to dismissal of Headman. Rule 19 pertains to matters to be considered in appointment of successor of a lambardar. Thus in the instant case the only relevant provision is rule 19 and not rule 5 as referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Rule 19 which relates to matters to be considered in appointment of successor of a lambardar reads as follows:- "19. Matters to be considered in appointment of successor: - (1) In an estate or sub-division thereof, owned chiefly or altogether by Government, successor to the office of headman shall be selected, with due regard to all the considerations, other than hereditary claims, stated in rule 17: Provided that in such an estate or sub-division thereof, notified for the purpose by the Board of Revenue, the selection shall, as far as possible, be made in the manner prescribed by sub-rule (2) if a suitable heir is forthcoming.
(2) In other estates, the nearest eligible heir, according to the rules of primogeniture shall be appointed unless some special custom of succession to the office be distinctly proved but subject, in every case, to the following provisions:-
(a) The claim of a collateral of the last incumbent to succeed, shall not be admitted solely on the ground of inheritance unless the claimant is a descendant, in the male line, of the paternal great- grandfather of the last incumbent.
(b) Where a headman has been dismissed in accordance with the provisions of rule 18, the Collector may refuse to appoint any of his heirs-
(i) if the circumstances of the offence, dereliction of duty or disqualification, for which the headman was dismissed, make it probable that he would be unsuitable as a headman;
(ii) if there is reason to believe that he has connived at the offence or dereliction of duty for which the headman has been dismissed; (i.e) if any disqualification for which the headman has been dismissed, attached to him;
(iv) if he may reasonably be supposed to be under the influence of the dismissed headman or his family to an undesirable extent.
Explanation. - If a dismissed headman's heir is considered fit to succeed, regard shall be had to the property which he would inherit.
(c) The Collector may also refuse to appoint person claiming as an heir, on any ground which would necessitate or justify the dismissal of the person from the office of the headman.
(d) A female is not ordinarily eligible for appointment to the office of a headman, but may be appointed, when she is the sole owner of the estate for which the appointment has to be made, or, for special reasons.
(3) Failing the appointment of an heir, a successor to the office shall be appointed in the manner, and with regard to the considerations, described in rule 17.
(4) Election shall not, in any case, be resorted to as an and in making appointments, under this rule and rule 16.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to convince this Court by referring to rule 5 which deals to the effect that death or marriage of a party shall not cause the proceedings to abate. This rule 5 in no way is relevant for the adjudication of the matter in issue. As the provisions of rule 5 form part and parcel of the procedure which is to be followed by the Revenue Officer so it has got no concern whatsoever with the proceedings pertaining to the appointment of a successor of lambardar. Even if it is assumed that the provisions of rule 5 are relevant for the adjudication of appointment of a successor of lambardar the said point was agitated by the petitioner before the Member, Board of Revenue while moving a revision petition against order dated 22.6.1994 and the said contention was not accepted as is evident from order dated 6.2.1998. Again this point was agitated by the petitioner by filing a review petition which also met the same fate as is evident from the order dated 25.4.1999. Thus the point which has been agitated in the instant writ' petition was agitated, considered and rejected by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Thus the point agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force.
7. Besides the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is evident from the authorities referred by the learned counsel for respondent No.. 2 that the revenue authorities are the best judge in case of appointment of lambardar or successor of lambardar and High Court has rightly refused to give relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It has also been held in the said authorities that no one has vested right to be appointed as lambardar and the relevant authorities select the persons best suited for the purpose with a view to facilitate the performance of administrative functions entrusted to the lambardars. In the instant case the application moved by respondent No. 2 was processed in accordance with law and he was adjudged to be a suited person for the appointment of lambardar by the Assistant Commissioner vide his recommendations dated 3.4.1995 which were approved by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector vide his order dated 5.4.1995. The said order was challenged by way of appeal which was dismissed on account of abatement by the order of the Commissioner dated 22.6.1996. A revision petition filed against the said order was dismissed vide order dated 6.2.1998 and a review petition against the said order was dismissed vide order dated 24.5.1999.
8. For what has been stated above, it is evident that the orders passed by the Commissioner dated 22.6.1994 do not suffer from any legal infirmity. Consequently writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.