| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 1095 2023 SLD 1095 2023 MLD 869 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Multan Bench
Writ Petition No. 3360 of 2018, decided on 21st October, 2021. Date of hearing: 21st October, 2021.
CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Writ Petition No. 3360 of 2018, decided on 21st October, 2021. Date of hearing: 21st October, 2021.
CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
ALLAH NAWAZ KHAN
VS
MEMBER (JUDL. III) BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB LAHORE and 6 others
Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967
Section: 4(28),180
Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967
Section: 17,18
(a) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----Ss. 4(28) 180---Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968, Rr. 17 18---Lambardar/Headman---Appointment---Belonging to dominant tribe of the village, relevance---Disqualification on ground of being landless---Permanent Lambardar of the Chak was removed by District Collector---Respondent (Contester) was further appointed as Headman of the same village by District Collector after due procedure---Such appointment was challenged and the Executive District Officer (Revenue) upsetting the appointment of District Collector, appointed another respondent (contester) (now deceased) as Lambardar---Member Board of Revenue again restored the appointment of respondent---High Court bulldozed all the proceedings and remanded the matter to District Collector---District Collector ordered that none of the contestants were eligible for Lambardari post and required the subordinates to initiate the fresh process---Additional Commissioner once again appointed respondent (contester) and the said appointment was confirmed by Member Board of Revenue---Contentions that party had the hereditary right, so the Revenue Hierarchy was bound to appoint him as such; that respondent (another contester) was holding very meagre land; and that he was not a man of character---Held, that the hereditary claim was not the sole criteria to select the Lambardar, rather basic object was to appoint the most suitable person among eligible ones---Firstly, respondent (contester) was more educated; secondly, had excess land; thirdly, belonged to major tribe; and fourthly, was unanimously recommended by the Revenue Field Staff, Tehsildar and the Collector/Assistant Commissioner concerned---Said Authorities, who because of their experience/training were better qualified to make the choice than any forum else---High Court was not supposed to act as a Court of appeal, especially, when nothing wrong could be highlighted---Neither the appointee had ever been challenged/convicted nor a single penny was due towards him---Nothing was against him to be taken out of the contest--- Constitutional petitions were dismissed accordingly. (b) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)---…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492