P L D 1963 W (PLP)

Mahmood Khan for Petitioner, in Revision No.

508. Nasrullah Khan for Petitioner. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for Respondent. This order will dispose of Revenue Appeal No. 60 of 1961‑62 and two connected Revision Petitions Nos. 508 and 529 of 1961‑

62. The facts briefly are as follows : The case relates to the lambardari of Chak No. 18‑RB, District Sheikhupura. The Collector appointed the appellant Fazal Din but the learned Additional Commissioner intervened and appointed the respondent Ibrahim, son of Fateh Din instead. Fazal Din has come up in second appeal and Abdul Hamid and another. Ibrahim son of Muhammad Din, who had also contested the lambardari, in revision. The village is inhabited mostly by Jats who constitute about 2/3rd of the land‑owners in the estate. The Kambohs are about 1/3rd in number, and there is a small percentage of other communities who for purposes of Rule 15(e) of the lambardari Rules may be ignored. The Collector when he made the appointment was mostly influenced by the fact that Fazal Din was a previous Lambardar in India. In this estate he owns an area of about 7 acres and there was otherwise nothing against his selection. Ibrahim, son of Muhammad Din has been a temporary Lambardar for several years, but the Collector was not satisfied that he had performed his duties as such satisfactorily. Abdul Hamid is the biggest land‑owner ‑but the Collector gave greater weight to the hereditary claims of Fazal Din. The learned Additional Com missioner, however, held that the second lambardari in the village it has two Lambardars‑‑should go to a member of the Kamboh tribe who as already stared constitute about 1/3rd. of the land owners in the estate as well as the patti under consideration. The main argument which has been urged on behalf of Fazal Din is that unless the decision arrived at by the Collector in a lambardari case is held to be perverse, unreasonable or illegal the appellate authority should not lightly brush it aside, and the mere fact that the appellate authority could have come to a different conclusion on merits is not enough to justify interference. This proposition is in keeping with the decisions of Financial Commis sioner over a long period of time and then following by the Board of Revenue. The learned Additional Commissioner came to no such definite finding but merely observed that as Kambohs constitute 1 /3rd of the land owners of the estate and Ibrahim son of Fateh Din who is one of them bad a good personality he deserved the appointment. As already observed the decision of learned Additional Commissioner is contrary to the practice which has been followed by this Court over a long period of time. As regards the other two contestants ; Abdul Hamid and Ibrahim son of Muhammad Din, it has been urged that the officers below had made certain recommendations in favour of Abdul Hamid. They had also recommended Ibrahim son of Fateh Din but the choice really lies with the Collector and it is he who has to weigh the qualifications and the merits of the various candidates. The mere fact that a Naib‑Tahsildar or a Tehsildar makes a recommendation or some observations in favour of a particular candidate cannot have so much value as c to over‑ride the decision of the Collector though it would undoubtedly deserve consideration at his hands. As a result of the above discussion I would accept the second appeal of Fazal Din, set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and restore that of the Collector. The two revision petitions stand dismissed. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.