P L D 1966 W (PLP)

Shah Muhammad Malik for Respondent. This order will dispose of the following two appeals:‑

(1) Sajjad Hussain v. Din Muhammad (Appeal No. 3 of 1962‑63). (2) Hakim Din v. Din Muhammad (Appeal No. 206 of 1962‑63). These two appeals have been filed against orders dated the 15th of May 1963, passed by the Commissioner, Lahore whereby he accepted the appeal preferred by the respondent and appointed him a Lambardar. The facts of the case are that, on account of the migration of the non‑Muslim Lambardar from the village, the post of the Lambardar fell vacant. The parties, along with others, applied for the post. The Collector preferred Hakim Din petitioner. Din Muhammad, Sajjad Hussain and one Elahi Bakhsh went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner and the case was remanded. The Collector reconsidered the case but again appointed Hakim Din as Lambardar. Sajjad Hussain and Din Muhammad went in appeal. The Commissioner rejected the appeal of Sajjad Hussain, but accepted that of Din Muhammad and appointed him as a Lambardar. Hakim Din and Sajjad Hussain have come in second appeals. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. It is true that Hakim Din has been acting as a temporary Lambardar, but the reports of the Revenue Officers are against him. The Naib‑Tahsildar gave him a very damaging report. The Tahsildar gave points in favour as well as against him. From these it is evident that Hakim Din has no influence in his community and does not have any interest in discharge of Government obligations. As remarked by the learned Commissioner, this aspect of the case was probably overlooked by the learned Collector when he appointed Hakim Din as a Lambardar. So far as Sajjad Hussain is concerned, it is true that he is literate, owns more property and is also influential, but he does not belong to the predominate community of Gujars. His learned counsel has brought to my notice that 200 Gujars appended their signatures to a document purporting to show that they preferred Sajjad Hussain. It is not a case of election and such preferences, therefore, have to be ignored. As regards Din Muhammad respondent, it is true that he is not literate and also suffers from the defect of not having sufficient land to stand as surety against the Government demand. He, ho"‑ever, has hereditary claims, belongs to the Gujar tribe and is reported to have influence in the village. It was stated that he was a minor. I have seen him personally and am satisfied that he is an adult person who can be expected to discharge the functions and obligations as a Lambardar satisfactorily. The only short coming against him has been set right after by the learned Commissioner has given him a direction that he will be appointed as a Lambardar if he furnishes a security of five thousand rupees. The learned counsel for Sajjad Hussain has pointed out that this security is illegal, because it is not of a permanent nature. This defect, if any, can easily be removed by the Collector by having adequate security from time to time. Considering all the aspects of the case, I see no justification for interfering with the orders passed‑by the learned Additional Commissioner. Both the appeals fail and are rejected hereby. K. M. A. Appeals dismissed.