P L D (Rev (PLP)

ORDER. H. A. MAJID, F C.‑The Lambardari of Chak No. 43 in the Shahdara Tahsil fell vacant on account of the death of the previous Lambardar (Rehmat Ali). The Collector appointed Shah Muhammad in the vacant post in preference to Wali Muhammad one of the sons of the deceased Lambardar. The latter was successful in his appeal before the Commissioner The former has, therefore, come up to me in second appeal. There are two main points for consideration in this case :‑ (1) The Collector thought that the ownership of Wali Muhammad in this Chak amounted to only 1/3rd of 88 Kanals 11 Marlas. Against this the ownership of Shah Muhammad in the estate was 91 Kanals 11 Marlas. This discrepancy between the two proprietorships was so marked against Wali Muhammad, that the Collector decided to prefer Shah Muhammad. Infact, Wali Muhammad's ownership was 99 Kanals 12, Marlas' and my own view is that if the Collector had looked at this correct figure, he would not have preferred Shah Muhammad to Wali Muhammad. This opinion of mine remains, uninfluenced by the fact that .the Abadkari holding of Shah Muhammad in this village is larger than that of Wali Muhammad. Similarly, the ownership of Wali Muhammad in another district was smaller than the owner ship of Shah Muhammad in that district. The area owned by Wali Muhammad seems to have increased between the dates on which the Collector decided the case against him and the date on which the Commissioner accepted his appeal. This increase in the area is not influencing my decision in any manner, but I am fully satisfied that the land previously held by him 'was adequate as a security for the payment of the Government demand. The Collector had been under the impression that the ownership etc. was not sufficient as the security for the payment of land revenue. In these circumstances, my conclusion is that the Commissioner was justified in forming a view different from that of the Collector. (3) The appellant's counsel has referred in detail to an alleged incident in the life of Wali Muhammad which occurred some days before the death of his father. The allegation is that the father put in an application, before the Tahsildar mentioning that he wanted to disinherit Wali Muhammad because he was disobedient and had in fact assaulted him. The evidence on this subject has not been recorded with any degree of care, but it is curious that the present appellant did not bother to produce the most important witness, viz. the petition writer whose register is supposed to contain the entry which would prove the contents of the petition which is alleged to have been submitted before the Tahsildar. It is not for me at this stage to order that the evidence on this subject should be recorded de novo. In any case. I am entitled to assume that the old man, if he did put in such an, application, did so in a fit of anger and this fact should not prejudice the future career of Wall Muhammad. The Commissioner has held that the document produced as a copy of the Petition Writer's register should not be treated as anything better than a mere scrap of paper. It is finally argued by the appellant's counsel that there is a complaint recorded in the Collector's records to the effect that Wali Muhammad was given the Dhal Bachh for one harvest after his father's death and that he became a defaulter so much so that coercive process had to be issued against him before the money could be recovered. I suppose this would serve as a sufficient lesson tot his future work as Lambardar. For the above reasons, I would not like to interfere with the appointment of Lambardar as it was made by the Commissioner. Shah Muhammad's appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Announced. A. H. Appeal dismissed.