P L D (PLP)

This is a revision filed against an order dated the 21st of January 1964, passed by Commissioner, Rawalpindi whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts of the case are that Muhammad Nawaz Lambardar died and the question of filling up the vacancy came up for consideration. Three persons including the parties applied for the post. The Collector exercised his discretion under rule 17 (ii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules and appointed the respondent in spite of the fact that be was a minor. Ghulam Hassan and Fateh Muhammad both filed appeals before the Commissioner, but they were dismissed. Only Ghulam Hassan has come up in revision before me. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has referred me to P L D 1962 W. P. (Rev.)

97. This is a Full Board Ruling, but applies to the first appointment only. He has also referred me to Mr. Mitchel's ruling but there the Collector has exercised his discretion in not appointing the heir and the Financial Commissioner did not interfere. So far as the legal aspect of the case is concerned, the position is quite clear. This is an appointment to be made under rule 17(ii)(c) read with rule 16(ii)(c). Under rule 17(ii)(c) the Collector has the discretion to refuse to appoint a person claiming to be an heir on any ground which would necessitate or justify the' dismissal of that person from the office of headman. The cases which necessitate dismissal of Lambardars are those enumerated in rule 16 (i) because in that case the word used is `shall'. The cases which would justify the dismissal of a Lambardar are covered by rule 16 (ii). Here the Collector has to exercise his discretion. He may or may not dismiss a Lambardar in any of the contingency mentioned in this sub‑rule. According to rule 16 (ii) (c) a lambardar may be dismissed on account of absence from the estate. Here again the Collector has exercised the discretion and the law gives him power to appoint a minor or an absentee. The mere fact that the discretion could he otherwise exercised also is no ground for interference. In this case there are concurrent findings of the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner and before an inter ference is justified it must be held that orders passed by them were either perverse or unreasonable. In this case the Collector exercised his discretion under the powers given to him by law after a detailed examination of all the expects, and the Commissioner endorsed this exercise of discretion. There could therefore be no question of there being anything perverse or unreasonable in the orders passed by them. In these circumstances, there is no justification for any interference. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision rejected.