Find a Lawyer

Review Petition No.474 of 2004 in R.O.R. No.1693 of 2003, decided on 2nd December, 2009.

----R. 19---West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957), S.8---Appointment of lamberdar---After death of lamberdar, District Officer (Revenue) appointed the petitioner as successor lamberdar---On filing appeal by respondent, Executive District Officer (Revenue), set aside order of District Officer---Revision petition filed against order of Executive District Officer, having also been dismissed by Board of Revenue, petitioner had filed review petition---Petitioner had resigned front government service and was prepared to carry out duties as lamberdar---Petitioner had more land than the respondent and was better educated (F.Sc.) as compared to respondent who had passed primary stage---Being younger in age, it was expected that petitioner would deliver better---Review petition was accepted---Order passed by Executive District Officer (Revenue) and order passed by the Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue, were set aside and order passed by District Officer (Revenue), was upheld in review by Board of Revenue. Allah Ditta v. Salamat Ali and others PLD 1965 SC 393 ref. Rao Abdul Jabbar Khan for Petitioner. Rana Muhammad Arif for Respondent No.1.

The petitioner has filed this review petition against the impugned order dated 19-6-2004 passed by the Member (Judicial-V), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that after the death of Lamberdar of Chak No.294/GB, Tehsil Toba Tek Singh, applications were called for and the District Officer (Revenue), Toba Tek Singh appointed the present petitioner as Lamberdar vide order dated 14-4-2003. Aggrieved by that order, appeal was preferred by the present respondent No.1 which was accepted by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Toba Tek Singh vide order dated 2-9-2003 and revision petition filed against that order by Tanvir Ahmad, present petitioner in the Board of Revenue, Punjab was dismissed vide order 19-6-2004. Hence this review petition. 3. Arguments were heard and record was perused. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.1 also submitted written arguments which are available in the file of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned orders passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Toba Tek Singh and Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab were against the law and facts of the case. The petitioner was lawfully entitled for appointment as Lamberdar on the basis of sound physique and higher education. The petitioner owned 76-Kanals, 14-Marlas of land whereas the respondent was owner of 8 Kanals. The petitioner"s education was F.Sc. whereas the respondent was primary pass. The petitioner was quite, young energetic and was able to perform duties of Lamberdar efficiently. The hereditary claim could not be made basis for appointment of Lamberdar. The District Collector, Toba Tek Singh appointed the petitioner Lamberdar. The appointment of Lamberdar was purely an administrative matter and the District Collector appointed the most suitable person. The petitioner was entitled to be appointed as Lamberdar and he had preferential edge over the respondent No.1 on all counts. Finally, it was prayed that the review petition may be accepted. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No.1 argued that the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan had held that the Full Bench had no authority to entertain these cases. Reliance was placed on case titled as Allah Ditta v. Salamat Ali etc. reported in PLD 1965 SC 393 whereby the apex Supreme Court clearly prohibited Board of Revenue, Punjab that Lambardari cases disposed of by the Board of Revenue, Punjab should not be opened and adjudicated upon in the Full Board. The adjudication upon the instant review petition was in violation of the very clear order passed by the august Supreme Court. The orders passed by the apex Court were binding upon all the subordinate Courts of the country. Finally, it was prayed that the review petition may be dismissed. 6. We have given due consideration to the arguments presented by learned counsel by both parties and have also gone through the record available in the file. The view of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 is not applicable in instant case. In PLD 1965 Supreme Court 393 the Civil Appeal No.1 of 1965 was decided on 11-2-1965. The Rules mentioned therein are of West Pakistan Board of Revenue, Punjab (Conduct of Appeals and Revisions) Rules, 1959 which have been superseded vide Notification No.377/68-219/U(1), dated 13-7-1968 by West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968. Under section 8 of Board of Revenue Act, 1957 review of order of single Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab can be done by a Full Board comprising two or more Members of the Board of Revenue, Punjab. 7. Petitioner has resigned from Government service and is prepared to carry out duties as Lamberdar. The choice of Collector needs to be given weightage. Petitioner has more land than respondent No.1, is better educated being F.Sc as compared to respondent No.1 being primary pass. Being younger in age, it is expected that petitioner will deliver better.

8. In view of what has been stated in the foregoing, the review petition is accepted. The order passed by Executive District Officer (Revenue), Toba Tek Singh dated 2-9-2003 and order passed by the Member (Judicial-V), Board of Revenue, Punjab dated 19-6-2004 are set aside and order passed by District Officer (Revenue), Toba Tek Singh, dated 14-4-2003 is upheld. H. B.T./2/Rev. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.