Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.63 of 1968, decided on 9th May, 1984.

---R.17--Appointment of Lambardar--Rule of primogeniture--Office of Lambardar is an administrative arrangement to serve as a link between villagers and local administration--Revenue Authorities decided to ignore petitioner, who was son of deceased Lambardar, after fully evaluating claims of various contestants and appointed another person as Lambardar--Revenue Authorities, held, committed no illegality and, order could not be described to be without lawful authority.

Abdul Waheed v. Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and another 1971 S C M R 719; Muhammad Shafi v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab and 2 others 1972 S C M R 253 and Abdul Ghafoor v. Member Revenue, Board of Revenue and another 1982 SCMR 202 rel.

---R.17--Appointment of Lambardar--Rule of primogeniture--Petitioner who was son of deceased Lambardar was declared ineligible to be appointed as Lambardar and his claim was ignored by Revenue Authorities on ground that he had been convicted previously of an offence of theft involving moral turpitude--Held, no one had vested right to appointment of Lambardar on basis of rule of primogeniture and order of Revenue Authorities by which petitioner's claim to office of Lambardar on ground of his being son of deceased Lambardar, was ignored could not be described as illegal or to have been passed without lawful authority.

Ch.M.Abdus Salim, Bar-at-Law for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 9th May, 1,984.

With the death of Shahab Din office of Lambardar fell vacant. The District Collector on the demise of the previous Lambardar invited applications in the year 1964 for filling up the vacancy in the office of Lambardar. Three persons, namely, Muhammad Nawaz; Wali Muhammad and the present petitioner applied. The Collector of the District after evaluation of the merits of the contestants, vide order dated 7-5-1965, appointed Nazir Ahmad son of Shahab Din as Lambardar of the estate. The appointment was made under the rule of primogeniture. Muhammad Nawaz, a contestant to the office of lambardar preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of the Division. Vide order, dated 30-3-1966 the learned Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, reversed the order of the Collector, dated 7-5-1965 and observed that since Nazir Ahmad was a previous convict of an offence under Section 379, PPC which involved moral turpitude, was not a suitable person. Consequently, after accepting the appeal, the learned Commissioner remanded the case to the Collector for decision afresh, after inviting applications.

2. In pursuance to the remand order, learned Collector, Kasur, Camp at Pattoki, vide order dated 3-3-1967 appointed one Roshan Din as lambardar.

3. Two appeals were preferred against the order of the learned Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore dated 30th of March, 1966 before the learned Member Board of Revenue West Pakistan. One appeal was filed by Nazir Ahmad against the order setting aside his appointment as lambardar while Muhammad Nawaz went in appeal because he was not appointed as lambardar by the Commissioner. As regards Nazir Ahmad, the learned Member Board of Revenue observed that since he was an ex-convict under Section 379, PPC and was bound down for a period of one year to furnish security for good behaviour for a period of one year under Section 562, Cr.P.C., therefore, he was not a suitable person for appointment as lambardar. As for the case of Muhammad Nawaz, it was observed that unless and until the Collector found that appointment under rule 17(ii) was not possible, he could not be appointed. Door was left open to Muhammad Nawaz to apply again to the Collector. Both the appeals were consequently rejected on 17-10-1967. The present writ petition has been filed by Nazir Ahmad who could not succeed before the Revenue Authorities to get the office of lambardar, to assail their orders in refusing to appoint him as lambardar on the ground that he being the eldest son was entitled to succeed under rule of primogeniture. The conviction under Section 379, PPC could not be made a basis for refusal. The case was admitted to regular hearing on 22-1-1968 and the operation of the impugned order was suspended meanwhile. However, before the operation of the order was suspended. Roshan Din was appointed as lambardar by Collector on 3-3-1967 in pursuance to the remand order of the higher Revenue Authority. The arrangements made by order dated 3-3-1967, still continue. Roshan Din has also been impleaded as a party, (respondent) to this writ petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that his client has taken away his brief from him. So he is not in a position to assist the Court on factual plane. As for as legal point is concerned, he has stated that since the conviction referred to above was not sufficient for ordering dismissal of the lambardar, it could not have been taken as a ground to refuse him the appointment. In view of above learned counsel contended that the orders whereby his hereditary right/claim has been ignored are without lawful authority. Learned counsel has contended that while making the appointment, the Revenue Officials have to abide by the Rules covering the subject. Since this was a case of succession, the rule of primogeniture would apply and the eldest son as a matter of right was entitled to be appointed. In case, Nazir Ahmad was found ineligible, the other heirs of the deceased lambardar should have been considered. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are devoid of any force, for the reason that the office of lambardar is an administrative arrangement to serve as a link between the villagers and the local Administration. The petitioner had therefore, no vested right to get the appointment. If the Revenue authorities acting under the provisions of Land Revenue Rules, after fully evaluating the claims of various contestants decided to ignore Nazir Ahmad and instead appointed Roshan Din as a suitable person to perform the duties of a lambardar, they have not committed any illegality and the resultant orders passed cannot be described to be without lawful authority. It has been observed in the case of Abdul Waheed v. The Member, Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore and another 1971 S C M R 719 that claim to the office of lambardar could not be laid as a matter of right and it was essentially an administrative measure by which the lambardar is appointed by the District Collector, Reference can, with advantage, be also made to the case of Muhammad Shafi v. Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue Punjab and 2 others 1972 S C M R 253 wherein it was observed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that office of lambardar could not be claimed as of right, consequently order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition in limine was not interfered. Similarly in the case of Abdul Ghafoor v. Member Revenue Board of Revenue and another 1982 S C M R 202, the Supreme Court of Pakistan reiterating its earlier views observed that no one had a vested right to be appointed as a lambardar. Relevant authorities are to select persons best suited for the purpose with a view to facilitate performance of administrative functions of lambardar. In this case also, the order of the High, Court was upheld whereby the writ petition was dismissed.

5. In the instant case the claim of Nazir Ahmad was ignored on the ground that he had been convicted of an offence of theft under Section 379, PPC. The offence of theft admittedly involves moral turpitude. The Revenue Officer, therefore, relying on this conviction attaching to Nazir Ahmad have considered him ineligible to the appointment of the office of lambardar This order has been upheld right upto the Board of Revenue. As observed above, no one has vested right to the appointment of lambardar. In view of this the Revenue Officers by passing orders in performance of their duties under Land Revenue Rules have not committed any illegality which could affect their orders materially so as to render those as without lawful authority. After all, it is these officers who have to work with the local lambardar, their choice therefore cannot be interfered.

6. In pursuance to the remand order, Roshan Din son of Allah Ditta was appointed as lambardar by the learned District Collector in the year 1967. That appointment still holds the field.

7. Considering from all angles, I feel that the order by which Nazir Ahmad was ignored cannot be described as illegal or to have been passed without lawful authority. Consequently I do not find any force in the present writ petition and dismiss it leaving the) parties to bear their own costs.

M . Y . H . / N-63/L Petition 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.