P L D 1962 W (PLP)

This is a revision petition from the order of the Commis sioner, Lahore Division, whereby he confirmed the selection by the Collector, Kasur, of Mangli Khan Meo as Lambardar of the evacuee Patti Tahl Singh in Chak No. 24, Tehsil Chunian. In this case both the parties enjoyed hereditary claims. But the respondent scores on all the four other criteria laid down under Rule 15 (6) to (e) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. The petitioner has stressed only the two points dealt with below: ‑ The first is that the Collector and the Commissioner have wrongly considered the fact that the petitioner is a Government servant to be a bar against his selection. He has cited half a dozen cases in which Patwaris, clerks, school masters and others have been appointed Lambardars in Lahore District. H. A. Majid, M. B. R's. rulings in P L D 1957 W. P. (Rev.) 8 and 47 have been cited as authorities for the appointment of Government servants having hereditary claims as Lambardars. Both the cases before him were of revision petitions in which the Collector had appointed and the Commissioner had confirmed the selection of the Government servant with hereditary claims as Lambardar and there was nobody else in the field with hereditary claims. The Board interferes very rarely on the revisional side with the concurrent selection of the Collector and the Commissioner in Lambardari cases. But apart from this the main ratio decidendi was the view, consistently taken at the time in a number of rulings that refugee Lambardars with hereditary claims were to have pres criptive rights in filling up evacuee Lambardari vacancies. These two factors are clearly discernible from the terms In which my learned brother in P L D 1957 W. P. (Rev.) 8, dismissed the revision and refused to interfere with Rana Jehandad's selection " . . . but unfortunately the Arains (sic. who are three times the number of Rajputs) do not include among them any person who has hereditary claims to a Lambardari. Both the peti tioners admit that they have no hereditary claims. Against this the respondent was a Lambardar in East Punjab. He should not be made to suffer in obtaining rehabilitation as a Lambardar simply because he is in Government service and has to remain away from the village . . . . In the above circumstances the balance of convenience lies in retaining Rana Jehandad Khan's Lambardariship in this village." It is clear from the above ruling that hereditary claims of refugee ex‑Lambardars were at that time being given an Impor tance almost equivalent to rights of succession by rule of primo geniture in Lambardari appointments under Rule 17 (ii). Candi dates from overwhelming majority communities but without hereditary claims were overlooked in favour of those with hereditary claims from minority communities. The strict rule that a non‑resident is not to be appointed in making first appoint ments to Lambardari posts, under Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, was even relaxed in their favour and they were given the privilege of appointing substitutes (Sarbrahs) from the beginning, which hitherto had been denied except in deserving cases of succession to Lambardaris by rule of primogeniture. This view, however, has been over‑ruled in the Full Bench ruling reported in P L D 1958 W. P. (Rev.) 103, wherein it was held that hereditary claims of refugee Lambardars did not give them prescriptive rights to rehabilitation, but were only one out of five criteria laid down in Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, as relevant is permanently filling up evacuee Lambardari vacancies. After this clarification the rulings cited by the petitioner do not lay down the law correctly. The second point urged is that the respondent is too old and blind to perform the duties of a Lambardar and, therefore, the petitioner should be appointed and granted the facility of a Sarbrah. The orders of the Courts below show him to be about 85 years old. But neither the Commissioner nor the Collector found him to be blind. The Collector has, in fact, stated that he can, with the help of his young son, efficiently perform the functions of a Lambardar. I have no reason to differ from this view bear ing in mind how efficiently Mr. A. K. Fazul Haq, Prime Minister of Bengal and Konrad Adenauer, Chancellor of West Germany, both octogenarians, have been working in much higher respon sibilities at advance ages. With all four criteria in tile respondents favour, there is no reason to prefer the petitioner over him, particularly as his selection would mean the appointment of a non resident, who ab initio would require the services of a Sarbrah to perform the duties of Lambardar. This the rules do not contemplate. The law on the subject of Sarbrahs is contained in Punjab Land Revenue Rules, rules 26 and

27. The former rule lays down certain principles for the appointment of substitutes by the Collector on the nomination of non‑resident headmen, who own an estate or pay more than half the land revenue of the estate. The latter rule 27, allows the chief headman or Lambardar, with the permis sion of the Collector, to appoint a substitute to discharge his duties, where by reason of old age, physical infirmity or absence from his village or by reason of minority or other good cause, a headman is unable to perform the duties of his office in person. Thus, although the Collector is authorised to allow Sarbrahs to existing headmen, the rules do not contemplate that non‑residents, would be appointed, who would be unable to perform their duties] except on the express condition that Collectors must grant there: substitutes from the very beginning. My learned brother' M. Z. Khan, M. B. R., in his ruling reported at P L D 1961 W. P. (Rev.) 33, has correctly laid down the law in so far as fresh appointments are concerned in the following terms: ‑ "The appointment of a Sarbrah is not meant for such cases but is intended for contingencies where a suitable resident of the village has been appointed, but temporary arrangements have to be made to carry on the work, while he is unable to perform the duties of his office in person, by reason of old age, physical infirmity or absence from his circle with the permission of the Collector." I, therefore, find that no case has been made out for inter ference and reject the revision in limine. A. H. Petition rejected.