Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1973, decided on 26th October 1981.

(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated, 29‑4‑1971, passed in Writ Petition No. 452 of 1971).

West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑

-----S. 36‑Lambardar, appointment of‑No one has a vested right to be appointed as Lambardar‑Relevant authorities to select persons best suited for purpose with a view to facilitate performance of administrative functions of Lambardar‑All competent authorities on revenue side, after considering merits of both sides ultimately selecting respondent for such office, High Court, held, justified in observing that even if final order of Board of Revenue be assumed to be erroneous same could not be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction by High Court‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 185(3).

Sh. Abdul Karim

Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.

Malik Talib Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 26th October 1981.

.‑This appeal is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 29‑4‑1971 dismissing the petitioner's writ petition in limine.,

2. The facts leading to the present appeal are briefly that Abdul Ghafoor ‑petitioner, Nawab Khan respondent and 3 others applied for being appointed as Lambardar of Chak No. 329/W. B. Tehsil Lodhran, District Multan. The Collector, Multan by his order dated 25‑11‑1969 appointed Nawab Khan as Lambardar on the ground that he has been holding Dhal Bachh of the estate for the last 18 years and his performance during this period has been satisfactory. Against this order Abdul Ghafoor (petitioner) preferred an appeal under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, before the Commis sioner, Multan Division. The appeal was accepted by the Commissioner vide order dated 2‑3‑1970 on the ground that Abdul Ghafoor had more land and has rendered service to the Government. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, Nawab Khan (respondent) filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore but the same was dismissed by S. A. M. Khan, Member Board of Revenue vide order dated 1‑4‑1970. Nawab Khan, thereafter sought review of the order passed by the Member Board of Revenue in revision but it was dismissed in limine vide order dated 1‑5‑1970. The respondent then filed a second review petition. After considering the merits of both the candidates the learned Member accepted the same holding that comparison showed that Nawab Khan (respondent herein) was rightly better qualified than Abdul Ghafoor for the office in question. He therefore recalled the earlier orders passed by him in revision and review petition, appointing Nawab Khan as Lambardar. Abdul Ghafoor thereupon filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court which was dismissed in limine by a learned Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that neither of the parties had any vested right in the appointment to the office of Lambardar and the principle which applied for the adjudication of rights cannot be invoked in matters of this kind where something is done not in pursuance of any claim or vested right but only to facilitate the performance of administrative functions. The learned Judges of the High Court further observed that:

"We, therefore, think that this petition cannot succeed. Even if the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, is assumed to be erroneous, this fact alone is no ground for declaring it to be without lawful authority as this prayer is being claimed at the behest of the petitioner, who has no vested right to be appointed as a Lambardar." The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal and leave was granted.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and are inclined to agree with the High Court that no one has a 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 Lambardars. In the present case all the competent authorities on the revenue side i.e. Collector, Commissioner and the Member Board of Revenue, after considering merits of both the sides, have ultimate selected Nawab Khan, respondent for the office in question. The learned Judges of the High Court were, therefore, justified in observing that eve if the final order of the Member Board of Revenue is assumed to be erroneous it could not be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court. We are therefore not inclined to interfere in this matter and the question of competency of second review can be considered in an appropriate case. With these observations the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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