P L D (PLP)

Ch. Khalid Mahmood for Petitioner. Rafiq Ahmed Bajwa for Respondent. This is a second appeal filed against an order dated the 25th of March 1965, passed by Commissioner, Multan, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent was accepted. The facts of the case are that, when Imam Din Lambardar of the Chak, died, the post fell vacant. Applications were invited and seven persons including the parties applied for the post. The Collector under the impression that the case was governed by rule 17 (ii) of Punjab Land Revenue Rules appointed the petitioner, the son of the deceased Lambardar. The respondent went in appeal to the Commissioner who came to the conclusion that the relevant rule was 17(i) and not 17(ii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. He, therefore, accepted the appeal. Hence this second appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main question for consideration is whether rule 17 (i) or rule 17 (ii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules is applicable to the facts of this case. The total area of the Chak is 817 acres out of which 213 acres have been given to proprietors and 25 acres are with mortgagees. The total proprietary area comes to 238 acres. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that this very statement shows that the Provincial Government owns 425 acres out of 817 acres. In such cases, it is the extent of the proprietary area which would determine the applicability of rule 17 (i) or rule 17 (ii). The intention was that, if the extent of the proprietary area is such that the estate ceases to be wholly or chiefly owned by Government, rule 17 (ii) would be applicable. In this case, only 238 acres out of 817 acres are with proprietors and it is clear that the estate still falls in the category of one which is chiefly owned by Government. Appointment to the post of Lambardar will, therefore, be made under rule 17(i) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. The main claim of the petitioner was on account of hereditary considerations, but since rule 17 (ii) is not applicable; the learned Collector was not justified in appointing him on the ground that he was the son of the deceased Lambardar. As regards the merits of the parties, so far as rule 17 (i) is concerned, the learned Commissioner has carefully gone into the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the relatives of the petitioner were also in the Army but I find that the respondent himself served as a member of the Armed Forces. Having considered all the aspects of the case, I am of the view that the learned Commissioner was perfectly justified in setting aside the order passed by the learned Collector. There is, therefore, no force in this appeal which fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.