The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that revenue authorities must conduct a comparative evaluation when appointing a lambardar, setting aside a previous appointment and directing strict adherence to statutory requirements. In a detailed 17-page judgment, FCC Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, leading a division bench, emphasized that the selection process must focus on identifying the most suitable candidate based on character, capacity, and local acceptability.
Key Ruling
The court declared that the competent revenue authorities are required to undertake a comparative evaluation under Rule 17 to identify the best candidate for the office of lambardar. The judgment stated: "The entire selection process is thus oriented towards the appointment of a person in whom the State can repose confidence for the effective performance of public functions relating to the collection of land revenue, abiana, and other government dues, as well as for maintaining effective coordination between the administration and the local inhabitants."
Petition and Decision
The verdict came in response to a petition filed by Shoukat Ali, challenging the appointment of a lambardar for Chak No. 4/WB, Tehsil and District Vehari. The court set aside the earlier appointment and declared that Shoukat Ali is entitled to be appointed as lambardar for that area.
Supervisory Jurisdiction
The judgment noted that the jurisdiction of superior courts in lambardar appointments is essentially supervisory, exercised within constitutional and legal parameters. Interference is warranted only when the impugned order suffers from illegality, arbitrariness, misreading or non-reading of material evidence, violation of governing statutory provisions, or perversity in assessing comparative merit and suitability.
The court further stated that ordinarily, reappraisal of evidence or substitution of judicial view in matters involving comparative evaluation is impermissible unless the conclusions are demonstrably unsustainable in law or facts. However, such restraint does not override the constitutional mandate under Article 4 of the Constitution, which guarantees individuals the right to be dealt with in accordance with law and equal protection of law. This obligates all state functionaries, including revenue authorities, to act strictly within lawful authority and in a fair, non-arbitrary, and reasoned manner.
