P L D 1972 Rev (PLP)

3. During the course of the bearing I have also‑examined the petitioner Abdul Ghani who vide his recorded statement before me has clarified the whole issue. According to him he was appointed a temporary Lambardar as a refugee in 1950. In 1960 when the Livestock Breeding Scheme was introduced, he applied to the Deputy Commissioner in 1961 stating that as had been appointed Lambardar and was interested in Livestock Breeding Scheme, be should be given a lot. This lot was allotted to him in February 1962 jointly by the Director Animal Husbandry and the Deputy Commissioner. The lot was subsequently resumed from him and its possession taken away on 24‑6‑1969. The statement of the Patwari confirms that the grant in dispute was given to the petitioner not as an ordinary citizen but in his capacity as the Lambardar of the village. This belies the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the grant was not given to the petitioner as a Lambardar but because of his interest in Livestock Breeding.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied greatly on the execution of the lease deed which gave the period of the lease as 10 years. He has however omitted to appreciate the significance of the preamble of the lease deed which reads as follows:‑ "Whereas the tenant has offered to take a lease of the resumed Lambardari lot hereinafter described and his offer has been accepted, vide allotment orders 28‑1‑62 issued by the Collector Sheikhupura district." In the scheme for the allotment of resumed Lambardari grants, under Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme, it had repeatedly been laid down by the Government in various memorandum, dur ing 1959/60 that while non‑Lambardars were not excluded from the Scheme, preference for allotment under the Scheme was to be given to the Lambardars. Subsequently vide Memo. No. 1160‑63/ 1142‑C/VII, dated 28‑3‑1963, the resumed Lambardari grants were exclusively earmarked for the Lambardars.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also overlooked the provisions of condition No. 12 which provided that if the land was required for any public purpose, the lessee was to surrender the whole of the grant. It is obvious that since the Government had decided that Lambardari grants under Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme would be held by the Lambardars by virtue of their office and shall be passed on to their successor Lambardars on their resignation, removal or death etc. the order of re sumption passed by the Collector was legal and in order.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also rolled on Memo. No. 5657/63‑4145‑C (G) I, dated 23‑11‑1963. A perusal of this Memo: would show that Government had conveyed the following decision:‑ "Government have also decided that non‑Lambardars allotted Lambardari squares on Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme shall not be ejected till the expiry of their lease period." The learned counsel has misconstrued this portion to mean that an allottee who had been given a grant on account of his being a Lambardar would also continue to enjoy the grant after he had vacated his office. As has been stated earlier the Livestock Breeding grant in 1960 was open both to Lambardars and non-Lambardars. This order referred to the non‑Lambardars not being dispossessed till expiry of the least. This order did not refer to such Lambardars who may have ceased to be Lambardars during the period of the lease and could not be dispossessed.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on judgment dated 23‑4‑1963 of Mr. A. M. K. Leghari in Hanif Illahi v. Abdullah. I have gone through the judgment and the clear findings of the learned M. B. R. in this case were that the lot of Muhammad Ismail non‑Lambardar was allowed to be retained as he was considered fit by the Board. In respect of the other lot No. 98, the learned M. B. R. observed as follows:‑ "Fresh applications were not invited so as to give the Lambardar a chance to compete I would cancel the grant in Abdullah respondent's favour. The result therefore will be that lot No. 98 will on cancellation be available for allotment under the latest instructions conveyed in letter No. 1160‑63 1242‑CVIII, dated 28th March 1963 and Hanif Elahi Lambardar petitioner will be entitled to its grant, provided he is held to be unsuitable as a breeder." It would be observed from the above order of the learned M. B. R. that he gave full weight to the claims of the petitioner Lambardar for allotment of the grant in his favour.

8. I do not agree with the interpretation of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case the Collector had reviewed his order and he was not competent to review without prior permission of the Commissioner. It was a straight case of the resumption of the grant for public purpose in view of the petitioner having ceased to held the office of Lambardar on which account he had received the allotment; and it fresh allotment in favour of his successor Lambardar was accord lag to the Scheme of the Government which made the Lambardar Rehmat Ali entitled to the grant.

9. For all the circumstances and reasons given above I do not see any justifiable grounds to interfere with the orders of the lower Courts whereby the grant in question was resumed from the petitioner Abdul Ghani and allotted to his successor Lambardar, Rehmat Ali respondent. Orders may be issued and parties informed accordingly. Order accordingly.