Law: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Section: 36 , 128

West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----Ss. 36 & 182---Constitution of Pakistan (19731, Art.199 --- Appointment Lambardar Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of ---Evidence on record had fully established that respondent who was appointed by Authority below Lambardar of village concerned, was residing in that village and he also had some agricultural land in that village for cultivation---Grandfather and thereafter father of respondent had also been 1.ambardar of that village Respondent this had rightly been appointed as Lambardar by Authority under rule of primogeniture---Finding of fact arrived at by competent Authority below on basis of evidence on record, could not be interfered with Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, when no jurisdictional defect order of Authority had been pointed out. Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-- ----Art. 199---Constituional jurisdiction, exercise of---Scope of jurisdiction Finding Finding of fact arrived at by competent Court below, based on evidence record, could not be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court when no jurisdicitonal defect in finding of competent Authority was pointed out. Sh. Abdul Aziz for Petitioner. Farooq Bedar A.A.-G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th June, 1991. JUDGMENT The facts in brief, are that Roshan Din, grandfather of respondent No.2, Khadim Rasul was a Lambardar of the Revenue Estate Raipur Tehsil Shakargarh District Sialkot. After death of Roshan Din, his son, Ghulam Rasool succeeded him as Headman of the village. The said respondent owns and possesses 12/1-2 Acres of agricultural land in District Faisalabad. Allegation against him was that he did not own any land in village   Raipur and that he had shifted his residence permanently to District Faisalabad in order to look after his land there. On the death of Ghulam Rasool Lambardar, the controversy arose between the parties over the office. Learned District Collector appointed Muhammad Shafi as Headman of the revenue estate and ignored respondent No.2 for the office. Appointment of the petitioner as such was confirmed by the learned Commissioner, Gujranwala Division on appeal. On revision…