P L D 1959 W (PLP)

Appointment‑--Preference to young and literate candidates having majority community. Raja Hassan Akhtar and Rao Muhammad Ashfaq Khan for Petitioner No.

1. Ch. Muhammad Yahya for Petitioner No.

2. F. M. Anwari for Respondent. The report which has been finally received from the Deputy Commissioner shows that the Collector never obtained any previous sanction from the Commissioner for adding a Lambardari appoint ment in this estate. The question arises whether the Collector could decide to have a second Lambardari in this estate without the previous sanction of the Commissioner. My attention has been invited to paragraph 620 of the Colony Manual and also to what Mr. Akhtar Husain decided in Ali Muhammad v. Farzand Ali reported as P I. D 1953 Pb. 3, wherein it has been laid down that the Collector, if he is called Colonization Officer, is fully com petent to order the appointment of a second Lambardar in the Chak on the supposition that the number of headmen cannot be considered as fixed within the meaning of Land Revenue Rule 14 (i) so long as the colonization operations are in progress. I have little hesitation in accepting this position. It appears further that the Collector did not pass a formal order to the effect that a second Lambardari appointment should be created. The note recorded by him shows that a case should be made out for a second appointment. This should normally be interpreted to mean that his office should put up a draft recommendation which should be submitted to the Commissioner for approval. The only thing known is that some time later applications for filling the second appointment were invited. The assumption is that the Collector learnt in the meantime that he was himself competent to sanction the second appointment. The fact that he did not record a formal order sanctioning the second Lambardari appointment does not vitiate the subsequent proceedings, because his decision is quite apparent from the face that he invited applications from candidates. All that the parties; interested can demand is that their right of appealing against the correctness of the Collector's judgment should not be declared time‑barred at any stage. This estate happens to be a very large one and no‑one really contests the proposal of adding to the previous Lambardari appointment. In fact, the petitioners before me to‑day suggest that there may be a third Lambardari also. I need not correct the Collector's decision in this behalf, because if the parties can satisfy him about the need for a third lambardar, he will again be competent to take the necessary action. I notice, however, that there is no Colonization Officer left in the locality. B So, the Collector exercising jurisdiction will have to seek the Commissioner's approval for any proposed increase beyond the] number two. The question now arises whether the correct person was selected by the Collector. It is quite clear that this appointment has to be treated as an appointment in an estate chiefly owned by Government. Advantage can, however, be taken in order to rehabilitate such a refugee as may be in possession of a hereditary title to a Lambardari appointment. It is accepted by everyone that the respondent was himself a Lambardar in the village which he abandoned in India. Similarly, there is no serious contest regarding the claim of Ataullah petitioner about having been a Lambardar in his original village. The other petitioner Muhammad Ibrahim was not himself a Lambardar but his cousin Fatta was. This Fatta died during the migrations and the said petitioner is his next male heir in the line of primogeniture. He is, therefore, in my opinion, as much in possession of a hereditary title to a Lambardari appointment as either of the two other candidates, before me to‑day. Muhammad Ibrahim and Pir Bakhsh belong to the majority community in the estate, because they are both Jats. Ataullah belongs to a minority community, that is Arains. Muhammad Ibrahim's holding in the estate is 5 acres, though he will get some Land as inheritance from Fatta either in this village or in some other village at a later date. Pir Bakhsh's holding is 18 acres. Ataullah s holding, as given in the Collector's records, is only 6 acres though some other land had been proposed to him which the Collector counted as making a total of 15 acres. Altogether, I think the Collector did not pay adequate heed to the claims of Muhammad Ibrahim mainly because he did not know him to be a previous Lambardar from India. Now that his claim as a hereditary title‑holder has to be accepted, it will be noticed that he is younger and, therefore, more active than the respondent Pir Bakhsh is a decrepit old man and has, perforce to work through a son. He is literate whereas the respondent is illiterate. His smaller holding cannot be a handicap because it is enough for the security of the Government D revenues. Ataullah is even more attractive than Muhammad Ibrahim but he must yield place to the latter, because the latter belongs to the majority community. In the above circumstances, I accept the petition of Muhammad Ibrahim and direct that he should replace Pir Bakhsh as the second Lambardar of this estate. The petition of Ataullah will be considered to have become infructuous. A. M. C. Petition partly accepted.