Case Details

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

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)---…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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