Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 407 of 1959, decided on 18th April 1963.

S. 16 read with West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957), Ss. 3 & 4---Member Board of Revenue exercising his controlling jurisdiction over subordinate officer‑Can, in revisional jurisdiction, pass any order deemed proper in case without calling for records.

Appointment cannot be claimed as of right ‑Appointment can be set aside by Revenue Officer if appointee be convicted of serious offence involving moral turpitude subse quently‑Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. 28‑Punjab Land Revenue Rules, r. 15.

Certiorari‑Order not infringing any vested right‑ Cannot be challenged by writ of certiorari.

Mian Mahmood Ali for Petitioner. S. Zaheer Abbas for A. G. for Respondent No. 1. Hamid Ali Khan Sherwani for Respondent No. 2.

This is a petition under sec tion 2(4) of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1958, for issuance of a writ of certiorari to set aside the order of Mr. M. Z. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 6th of October 1958, reversing the order of the subordinate Revenue Authorities and appointing Hashmal, respondent No. 2, as the Lambardar of village Khara in place of Dhani Khan, petitioner. The petitioner Dhani Khan was appointed as Lambardar by an order of the Collector, dated the 3rd of June 1957. In appeal, by the respondent, Hashmal, the learned Commissioner upheld the order of the Collector on the 3rd of April 1958. On the 6th of October, 1958, Mr. M. Z. Khan, Member Board of Revenue, accepted the revision petition of Hashmal and found the petitioner unsuitable for appointment as Lambardar on the grounds, namely, (a) that his name was recorded as a bad character in basta alif and (b) that he was held on to be an unreliable witness by a Court in its judgment dated the 26th of September 1957. The respondent was, therefore, appointed a Lambardar of Patti Karam Singh of village Khara. The petitioner moved an application to respondent No. 1 under section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act XI of 1957 for review of the order. Respondent No. 1 accepted the contention of the petitioner regarding allegation against him of being in basta alif, as according to him, a history‑sheet of the petitioner was opened after the Collector passed the order but on representation made by the petitioner and on subsequent enquiry his name was removed. He, however, dismissed in limine the review applica tion by his order, dated the 12th of May 1959, on the ground that the petitioner had been described as an unreliable witness in an observed case under section 363/366/376, Pakistan Penal Code, and observed that on that ground alone he could be held unreliable for appointment as a Lambardar. He stated in his order that no other ground was pressed at the time of arguments."

2. The sole ground urged in support of this petition by Mr. Mahmood Ali is that in exercise of his revisional powers under section 16 of the Land Revenue Act, the Member, Board of Revenue could not embark on a fresh enquiry, his jurisdiction being confined to re‑appraising the material already on the record. He relied on section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act to contend that an order in revision could not be passed without sending for the record, which implied that the orders passed on facts, which were extraneous to those contained in the record, were not sustainable. He, therefore, argued that the learned Member, Board of Revenue, could not rely on the observation against the petitioner in a judgment under section 363/366/376, Pakistan Penal Code.

3. The argument loses all force when we consider that the relevant provisions applicable in the case are contained not only in section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act but also in the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act XI of 1957. By virtue of section 4 of the Act, the Board is vested with general superintendence and control over all Revenue Officers. It is also udder section 5 of the Act a controlling authority in all matters connected with the administration of land, collection of land revenue, preparation of new land, record and other matters relating thereto. It is moreover, constituted the highest Court of appeal and revision in revenue cases in the Province. The Board can, therefore, exercise its revisional jurisdiction both under the Punjab Land Revenue Act and the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (Act XI of 1957). Under the latter Act, there is no restriction as to calling for the records. Both Acts can be read together and, therefore, the Member, Board of Revenue, when exercising his controlling jurisdiction over his subordinate officers and, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction can pass any order, which, in the circumstances of the case, he may deem proper. .

4. We have considered the case from other aspect also and are of the opinion that the petitioner has no case. Lambardars are appointed under section 28 of the Land Revenue Act read with the Land Revenue Rules. In all first appointments, the Revenue Officers have to consider, among other things, the character of the candidate. The appointment of the headman is for administrative purposes. No person can claim, as of right, to be appointed a Lambardar even if he were to satisfy all the conditions which are laid down in rule 15 of the Land Revenue Rules. He can still be ignored and in such a case he cannot complain that any wrong has been done for the simple reason bat be does not have any vested right. The Land Revenue Act is a self contained statute and if there are more than one candidates contesting appointment to the office of a Lambardar, the person aggrieved has a right to appeal and may as well move the competent authorities in revision. But this is not on account of the fact that he had any right vested in him but only for the reason that the statute provides for such a procedure which enables him to challenge the orders in appeal or revision. The Board of Revenue is the head of the revenue Administration and is a controlling authority. There is no warrant for the proposition that the Board cannot take into consideration a fact which has taken place subsequent to the appointment made by the Collector. The point which they have to consider is the fitness or the competency of a person as a Lambardar and not that they are adjudicating on the rights of the parties in such matters because there is no such right involved. The principles which apply in the adjudication of rights cannot be invoked in matters of this kind where something is done not in pursuance of any claim or a vested right., but only to facilitate the performance of administrative functions. If we were to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner it would mean that when a revision petition against the appointment of a person as a Lambardar is pending before the Commissioner or the Member, Board of Revenue, they cannot set aside his appointment even in a case where he has been convicted of a serious offence involving moral turpitude after his appointment. This cannot be true because it will be putting fetters on the exercise of their functions which are purely administrative in nature. We are, however, clear in our minds that since there is no right vested in the petitioner, he cannot challenge the orders by a writ of certiorari. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs.

K. B. A./A. H. 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.