P L D (Rev (PLP)

SAIDULLAH KHAN, F. C.‑This is a reference by the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division dated the 21st August, 1951, the concluding paragraph of which is reproduced below for the purpose of the disposal of the reference :‑‑ "It is made clear by the counsel for the petitioners that there is no intention to challenge the rest of the order of the Sub‑Divisional Officer as confirmed by the Collector. The only point which the petitioners challenge and want to be revised is the direction about the payment of the chowkidar's pay from the Dharat fund. It is prayed that the order be so revised as to bring it in accord with the provisions of the Wajib‑ul‑arz in so far as payment of chowkidar's pay is con cerned. The order of the lower Court clearly contravenes section 37 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act and should be modified as prayed". Notices were accordingly issued to the parties to appear in this case to‑day and a notice was also issued to the Govern ment Pleader who also attended. I have heard the parties and the learned Government Pleader in this case and I am apt to agree that Dharat fund cannot by any stretch of imagination, be held to be a village cess vide section 4 (2) of the Punjab Tenancy Act and the amount realized through this fund cannot be termed as an appropriate charge towards the payment of pay of chowkidars. It appears from a perusal of the Wajib‑ul‑arz, the relevant portion whereof is reproduced below :‑ that the choukidar's pay is to be met out of kamiana levied in the three previous settlements of 1860, 1880 and 1900. It would thus appear that the rates specified above were determined during the last settlements and contained in the Wajib‑ul‑arz and were being realised as kamiana till the law underwent a change in 1950 when most of the cesses were done away with except that contained in section 2 (2) of the Punjab Tenancy Amendment Act, 1950. According to the amended Act, there fore, village cess means any cess, contribution or due which is customarily leviable, from landowners and non‑landowners alike, within in estate for the common purposes of the inhabi tants thereof and is neither a payment for the use of any private property or for personal service nor imposed by or under any enactment for the time being in force and 'does not mean any cess contribution or due leviable for the benefit of any in dividual residents or class of residents in the estate, or in relation to any property which is not meant for the common use of all the residents. It is thus apparent that the kamiana as laid down in the Wajib‑ul‑arz referred to above does not subsist in its original form and a provision shall be made for a cess in the light of the amended Act for payment of the chowkidar's pay and the amount thereof apportioned accor dingly. The case is therefore being forwarded to the Collector, Jhelum for further‑suitable action in the matter. A. H. Case remanded.