P L D 1966 W (PLP)

Ch. Muhammad Nasrullah for Respondent (in. Revision No. 1484 of 1962‑63). This order will dispose of the following two revisions:‑‑ (1) Muhammad Nawaz v. Allah Ditta (Revision No. 1452). (2) Amanat Ali v. Muhammad Din (Revision No. 1484). These two revisions have been filed against orders dated the 23rd of May 1963, passed by the Commissioner, Bahawalpur, whereby he rejected the appeals preferred by the petitioners. The facts of the case are that, before Independence, there was only one post of Lambardar in this village but in 1953 an additional post was created. When the question of making permanent appointment to these two posts came up for consideration, the parties contested: It was decided that, as the village was, inhabited by locals as well as refugees, one post should go o a local and the other should be given to a refugee. For the local post the contestants were Muhammad Nawaz and Allah Ditta. The Collector considered the claims of the two contestants and preferred Allah Ditta. Muhammad Nawaz petitioner went in appeal to the Commissioner, but his appeal was rejected. Hence this revision. As regards the refugee vacancy, the contest lay between Amanat Ali and Muhammad Din. After weighing claims of the parties, Muhammad Din respondent was preferred by the Collector. Amanat Ali went in appeal, but the appeal was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. So far as the local vacancy is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of the Collector is perverse because he ignored the considerations laid down in Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. I am afraid I cannot accept this contention. Both the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner duly considered the claims of the parties and gave a decision in favour of the respondent. The learned counsel for Muhammad Nawaz petitioner has also contended that the report about the non‑residence of Muhammad Nawaz petitioner is not correct. He has referred me to the previous report of the Assistant Commissioner in this behalf but that report is silent on the point. As the facts were before .the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner, they were justified in holding that Muhammad Nawaz petitioner suffered from the disqualification of being a non‑resident. As far the other case the learned counsel for Amanat Ali has pointed out that the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner did not correctly appreciate the considerations mentioned in rule

15. He has contended that Amanat Ali was admitted to be a Lambardar but, for the respondent's case, reliance was placed only on a certificate of a Naib‑Tahsildar. Hereditary considerations are only one of the various factors that have to be considered in such cases but from the available record, it is quite clear that the claim of the respondent was superior. Another point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he owns more land than the respondent. This is also established by the record. So far as service rendered by the State is concerned, the petitioner has been a temporary Lambardar in this village. On the other hand, the respondent has military as well as other services to his credit. So far as this aspect is concerned, the parties appear to have equally good claims. As regards influence, the learned counsel for the petitioner has said that a person who owns more property should be considered to have a greater influence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Muhammad Din has urged that the respondent is a member of the District Development Committee and all the revenue officers have unanimously stated that he has greater influence. In this respect, the respondent scores over the petitioner. So far as the strength of the communities are concerned, both are Arains. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, pointed out that the petitioner belongs to Jullundur and refugees from Jullundur predominate. I am afraid I cannot accept this contention. In such cases, the community has to be considered and not persons who come from one place or the other. So far as this aspect is concerned, the parties have equal claims. The main consideration on which the claim of Amanat Ali was rejected was a case of embezzlement which was pending against him. He himself admitted that such a case was pending. According to the state of affairs as they existed at the time, such a person could not be preferred over the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner was subsequently acquitted but one has to see what was the state of affairs when the Collector preferred the respondent over the petitioner. Having considered all these matters, I see no justification for any interference with the concurrent findings of the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner in either of the two cases. Both the revisions, therefore, fail and are dismissed hereby. K. M. A.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revisions dismissed.