P L D 1957 W (PLP)

H. A. MAJID.‑

The present petitioner was selected by the Collector for the Lambardari appointment in dispute. The Commissioner, however, replaced him by the present respondent. There is no doubt that the petitioner belongs to the predominent Gujjar tribe. His holding is, however, much smaller than that of the respondent in this estate. The fact that he is entitled to receive some more land in some other estate or district is not very material to the decision in the present case. The Commissioner observed that the respondent had better personal claims than the petitioner. This fact is not seriously contested by the petitioner. The petitioner has, however, stated in very emphatical terms that the Commis sioner was not justified in stating that he had failed to perform his Lambardari duties properly in a village in the Hafizabad Tahsil. The Commissioner states that the present petitioner had failed to collect the land revenue in time and had left considerable arrears uncollected. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner was a temporary Lambardar and when he got land allotted to him in the village in dispute, he left the Lambardari work of the village in the Hafizabad Tahsil with his uncle, and the only arrears left uncollected were arrears of the rent of evacuee property. The petitioner has now produced copies of reports recorded in the Gujranwala District in order to show that his record as a temporary Lambardar was not black. I am willing to accept this contention of the petitioner. It, however, appears that one other circumstance works against the present petitioner. The respondent states that the petitioner does not reside in the village in dispute. Such a contention appeared in the grounds of appeal which the present respondent had produced before the Commis sioner. There, is, however, no reference to this matter in the Commissioner's judgment. The petitioner now states before me that he has permanent residence in the village. The respondent, on the other hand insists that the petitioner lives at Sargodha, where he has obtained a ration card, and also exercises the rights of a voter enrolled in the electoral roll. The petitioner admits that he used to live at Sargodha when allowances were given by the Custodian. He does not say that the house at Sargodha has been given up. he has produced before me the Khasra Girdawari of the residential area of the village in dispute. His name appears in a list of people concerned with one of the resi dential sites and this list shows that he has a Chabara/Baithak. He says that his children sometimes visit this village. Taking all the above circumstances into account, I am of the view that the Commissioner was justified in preferring the present respondent to the present petitioner. I, therefore, dismiss this petition for revision. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.