P L D 1964 W (PLP)

Lambardar‑‑‑Appointment- Opinion of Police Officer against candidate not accepted by Collector‑Commissioner interfering with order of Collector on mere opinion of Police Officer, which was not accepted by Collector --‑ Order of Commissioner liable to be set aside. Chiragh Din v. Din Muhammad P L D 1963 W. P. (Rev.) 86 and Asghar All v. Sardar Khan P L D 1959 W. P. (Rev.) 91 ref. This case relates to the Lambardari of village Dalori Bala, situated in the newly merged Gadoon area now included District Mardan. The Settlement Officer exercising the powers of a Collector appointed the appellant Kachkol Khan and the two respondents Zardar and Sardar, as Lambardars of the village Sabit Shah went in appeal to the learned Additional Commis sioner who relied on a report made by the Police Station House Officer of the Ilaqa to the effect that Kaclnkol Khan was an unreli able person, a smuggler of opium, not a helper of the police and in case he were appointed as Lambardar he would become a headache to the local police. As a result he remanded the case for reconsideration and appointment afresh on merits. Kachkol Khan has come up in second appeal. Two points have been urged before me on behalf of the appellants,. Firstly, that the learned Additional Commissioner bad scant justification for relying on the personal opinion of the Police Station House Officer which was not based on any facts as the police records did not disclose anything against the appellant. Thus what the Police Station House Officer reported was merely a matter of his personal opinion. Reliance m this behalf is placed on Chiragh Din v. Din Muhammad (P L D 1963 W. P. (Rev.) 86). I had held in that case that reports made in Lambardari cases by lower officers should not be preferred to the decision of the Collector. These officers are merely to submit reports to the Collector and that too if he asks for them under the provisions of section 13 (3) of the Land Revenue Act. It is the Collector who after giving glue consideration to all the facts has to arrive at a decision as he is the competent authority to make the appointment of a Lambardar. The second point urged is that the choice made by the Collector was reasonable and in making it he had observed the provisions of Land Revenue Rule

15. There was thus no ground for the learned Additional Commissioner to interfere in appeal. It is contended on the other side that the police report has considerable importance in judging the character of a candidate under sub‑rule (d) of Land Revenue Rule 15 and the learned counsel cited Asghar Ali v. Sardar Khan (P L D 1959 W. P. (Rev.) 91). In that case Mr. H. A. Majid, Member Board of Revenue had dismissed a revision petition and in doing so had relied on a police report. That police report, however, was based on facts, as the petitioner in that case was suspected in a dacoity case which was a riattet of record and had remained absconding for sometime. In addition he was under police surveillance which was against a matter of record. In the case before me there is nothing against Kachkol Khan on record and the Police Station House Officer merely gave an opinion against him, which the Collector refused to accept. There was thus no good ground for the learned Additional Commissioner to set aside the appointment of Kachkol Khan merely on the opinion of the Police Station House Officer, which is not based on any police records. I would accordingly accept this second appeal set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and restore that of the Settlement Officer (Collector). K. M. A. Appeal accepted.