Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAHAB-UD-DIN VS Respondent: MUBARAK ALI
P L D 1961 W
P L D 1961 W. P. (Rev.) 75
Before Nasir Ahmad, Member, Board of Revenue,
West Pakistan
SHAHAB‑UD‑DIN‑Petitioner
versus
MUBARAK ALI‑Respondent
Revision No. 153 of 1959‑60, decided on 3rd December 1960, District Multan.
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Application may be made to Collector before appointment is decided upon.
Muhammad All v. Haji Ahmad P L D 1956 W. P. (Rev.) 47 dissented from.
(b) Revision‑Question of fact may be agitated before Board, though in practice Board confines itself to legal issues.
Hasan Akhtar for Petitioner.
Wajid Hussain for Respondent.
ORDER
This is a revision petition filed by Shahabuddin whose appointment a5 Lambardar of Chak No. 20/8BR, District Multan was set aside by the learned Commissioner vide his order dated 20‑1‑60 and the respondent Mubarik Ali was appointed instead. The main point that has been taken up before me is that the respondent had not applied to the Tehsildar within the period laid down for inviting applications and his case should not therefore have been considered following the decision of Mr. Majid in Muhammad Ali v. Haji Ahmad (P L D 1956 W. P. (Rev.) 47) Mr. Majid held in that case that an application after the date fixed by the Assistant Collector could not help a candidate even if made before the Collector passes final orders. With due deference to the opinion expressed by Mr. Majid I am not inclined to accept his view. The Authority for making the appointment off Lambardar vests in the Collector and all the earlier proceedings before a Tahsildar or a Revenue Assistant are merely in the nature of a preliminary enquiry. It will therefore be quite in order if an application is made to the 'Collector before he decides the case. The Collector may direct a further enquiry. on that application or may consider it suo motu when making the appointment. There is no legal provision for the Tehsildar or the Revenue Assistant to invite application though the existing procedure under which this is done has the support of a long standing practice. The Collector, however, is not there by deprived of his powers to invite applications and come to a! decision thereon on merits. There is, therefore, no force in this contention.
Several other points relating to question of facts have also been raised for example that no relation of the respondent is employed in the Army and an affidavit has also been submitted that the petitioner was not fined for cutting District Board timber etc. These questions of fact should really have been taken up either before the Collector or the Commissioner. Though it is competent to agitate these questions in the Board of Revenue, a practice, however, is growing to confine consideration to legal issues. It would, therefore, decline to interfere in the order passed by the learned Commissioner and reject this revision petition.
K. M. A. Petition rejected.