P L D 1961 W (PLP)

(a) Lambardar‑Candidate not owning land in Patti‑Not entitled to be appointed. P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 65 rel. P L‑D 1957 W P (Rev.) 56 not fol. (b) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. l5‑Review Lalv‑point decided‑Review competent. Qadir Bakhsh for Petitioner. Balal Haide‑ for Respondent. The respondent Nizam Din was appointed Lambardar of Patti Ganga Singh village Bath, Distrist Lahore. Muhammad Alam petitioner, who wag one of the contestants went up in appeal to the Commissioner and in revision to Mr. M. Z. Khan, my learned predecessor, but failed at both places. An application for a review of Mr. M. Z. Khan's order has now been filed and the only ground that has been urged before me is that the respondent at the time he was appointed Lambardar did not held land in Patti Ganga Singh and acquired it, if at all, on a subsequent date. As a matter of fact the records indicate that he did so as recently as 2‑12‑1960. The appointment, it is contended was thus illegal and in this connection reliance is placed on the ruling given by Mr. Miles Irving F. C. in R. O. A. No. 4 of 1933‑34 Jagan Nath v. Dewa Singh reported in (P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 65), This ruling has continued to be followed and has become law on the subject. My learned predecessor held that this point viz., absence of any property in the Patti was not raised before the Collector or the Commissioner and was an after thought, and this was an important legal issue, and it should have been raised at the earliest. As a matter of fact the plea was taken up before the officers below as the order passed by the learned Commissioner clearly indicates. The material facts i.e., absence of property in the Patti concerned at the time of the appointment, however, are not denied before me but reliance is placed on P L D 1957 (Rev.) 56 in which Mr. H. A. Majid held that a candidate for a Lambardari could be allowed to improve his position at any time even to the extent of acquiring land for the first time in the Patti to which the Lambardari relates. With due deference to the opinion expressed by the learned Member I find myself in agreement with the views expressed in P L D 1950 (Rev.) 65 by Mr. Miles Irving. As observed by him the law clearly is that if a person does not hold land in an estate or part of an estate to which the Lambardari relates he becomes liable to dismissal; he i.e., a person not owning any land in the Patti thus obviously cannot be appointed as Lambardar initially. This is a legal error which is quite obvious and as the particular issue which is not one of fact, bet of law was taken up before the Commissioner and also before my learned pre decessor, it constitutes a ground for me to review the order passed. I hold that the appointment of the respondent is not in accordance with law and would, therefore, remand the case to the Collector for a fresh decision on merits. It would be fit case in which fresh applications may be invited by him before coming to a decision. K. M. A. Case remanded.