P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)

Appeal No. 73 of 1958‑59, decided on 20th July 1960, District Montgomery. Lambardar‑Appointment‑Re‑arrangement of pattis ending appeals arising out of appointment‑Effect. Dr. Javaid lqbal for appellant. Rafrq Ahmed for Respondent. This case relates to the appointment of Fazal Muhammad respondent as Lambardar of Chak No. 133/9L, Tehsil and District Montgomery. Bakhshi Khan petitioner was one of the candidates and the Collector decided in his favour, and he was appointed Lambardar vide his (i.e., the Collector's) order dated 3‑11‑1956. An appeal was filed by Fazal Muhammad and the learned Com missioner upheld the appeal, and appointed Fazal Muhammad instead. Bakhshi Khan then filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue and a question arose whether Fazal Muhammad has any property in the Patti to which the appointment related or not. My learned predecessor remanded the case for a fresh decision on this ground. The Collector again appointed Bakhshi Khan on the merits, and the learned Commissioner disagreed with the findings of the Collector on the basis of an assessment of the merits of the two contestants and appointed the respondent instead. Bakhsbi Khan has now come up in second appeal to the Board of Revenue a second time. The main point which has been argued before me is that Fazal Muhammad was not a land owner in the Patti to which the Lambardari relates. The Collector himself when making the appointment a second time has observed that before 28‑2‑1957, the date on which the first order of appointment was passed by the Collector, Fazal Muhammad held land in this particular Patti. Subsequently when the case went up to the Commissioner, a re‑arrangement of Pattis was ordered by the Collector and Fazal Muhammad was ousted from the Patti to which the Lambardari relates. The Collector has rightly observed that sometimes the field staff in collaboration with clever candidates manipulate to so arrange a Patti, that very suitable and eligible candidates are thrown out of the field in which they may have preferential chance. The Commissioner has relied on this observation and has redirected a re‑arrangement of Pattis so as to rectify the injury done unintentionally and unobtrusively by depriving Fazal Muhammad of owning land in this Patti. The stress which the learned counsel or the respondent has thus laid on this point of Fazal Muhammad being a non‑landowner in this particular Patti does not hold good. I would, therefore, reject this revision petition and maintain the order passed by the learned Commissioner. K. M. A. Revision rejected.