SAFDAR ALI vs MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE Rr

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

SAFDAR ALI VS MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE Rr. 17 & 22---Notification No. 812-2010/586-C(V)---Headman (Lumberdar), selection of---Appointment Criteria---Hereditary claims---Scope---After the death of the permanent headman (Lumberdar), his son (respondent) continued on the post, however, the concerned district Collector appointed the petitioner as Lumberdar which order was maintained by the Executive District Officer (Revenue)---Member Board of Revenue set-aside concurrent orders of subordinate authorities and appointed the respondent Petitioner invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court against his elimination---Validity---Headman / Lumberdar was an administrative seat of its own class, which post could neither be designated as profession nor against any profit, rather the Headman (Lumberdar) held an honourary post acting as bridge inter se the landowners and Revenue Authorities, therefore, no one could claim his appointment as vested right---It is, in fact, the choice of Revenue Authority to appoint a suitable candidate per yardstick set out in R. 17 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968 ('the Rules 1968') for discharging the obligations assigned to him in terms of R. 22 of the Rules 1968---Object should be that person best suited for the said post should be committed to enable the Administration, so that command and control over the state land, Exchequer as well as other affairs could be maintained---Rule 17 of the Rules, 1968 stipulated the features to be considered while selecting a suitable candidate for appointment headman (Lumberdar) which (features) still included the hereditary claims (along with other relevant features) and it was sine quo non for the Revenue Authorities to consider the same---Record showed that not only the father of the respondent, but his grandfather too remained Headman (Lumberdar) of the concerned revenue estate, thus Priority No. 1 as per R. 17 of the Rules, 1968 was available to the respondent; and he, after death of his father, remained headman (Lumberdar) for more than thirteen years, which appointment was made as per prevalent policy promulgated via Notification No. 812-2010/586-C(V) which stipulated that the land was to be retained by the family of deceased Lumberdar till appointment of new incumbent---Though the petitioner was having edge over the respondent vis-a-vis education, strength of property, yet neither said factors were sole criteria for selection nor could be given preference over hereditary claim as well as experience without a single complaint---Member Board of Revenue had perfectly passed the impugned order as per history of the case as well as relevant law while exercising his lawful authority---No material irregularity or patent illegality or jurisdictional defect having been noticed in the impugned order---constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

SAFDAR ALI vs MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE Rr — 2023 YLR 2594 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR