P L D 1963 W (PLP)

‑

Order of Collector neither perverse nor unreasonable‑Will not be upset by Commissioner. (c) Lambardar‑Appointment‑

Property position at time of order of Collector should be considered decisive. NASIR AHMED (MEMBER).‑In this case Abdul Shakoor has filed a revision petition to the Full Board under section 7 of the Board of Revenue Act against orders of the learned Member, Mr. M. Z. Khan, dated 27‑4‑1959, whereby the Commissioner's order, dated 28‑4‑1958, was set aside and Collector's order appointing Wali Muhammad as Lambardar in village Lakranwali, Tahsil Dipalpur, was restored. The grounds on which the learned Member reversed the order of the Commissioner was that although the petitioner had a hereditary claim, he was bound down under section 107, Cr. P. C. and his holding was much smaller than that of the respondent. The grounds on which the Member reversed the Com missioner's orders are reasonable. It is true that minor technical offences are not a bar to appointment, but binding down of an individual under section 107, unless there are mitigating circumstances, can well be a factor for passing over the individual concerned. It is true that there have been cases in which the Board of Revenue have declared that conviction in petty offences need not disqualify an individual, but in all the cases which are on record conviction under section 107 was a factor in rejection of the claims to Lambardari. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that such cases in villages are common and such convictions are best ignored. In our opinion if an individual aspires to be a Lambardar, he should take such convictions seriously and have the order, if not justified, reversed. There may even be a case for a detailed examination of the circumstances under which conviction under section 107 took place, and disqualification need not be automatic as a result of conviction under section 107 but clearly such a conviction should weaken an individual's claim, and it would be for him to establish the mitigating circumstances or reasons why it should not be a bar to appointment in a particular case. In the present case no such circumstances have been brought out, and the order, of the learned Member attaching importance to it was fully justified. There is also the question of the improvement in the applicant's status and property qualifications. The rulings on this point are apparently contradictory. According to two orders of Mr. Miles Irving P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 51 and P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 332 (sic.) in hereditary claims improvement was permissible upto the Commissioner's order, while in two other cases viz., P L D 1959 W P (Rev.) 62 and P L D 1960 W P (Rev.) 66 Mr. M. Z. Khan held that the status cannot be improved after the Collector's order. It will be noticed that the trend in the later rulings has consistently been in the direction of ignoring improvement in status after Collector's order. This point of view is further strengthened in the present case by the convention that in Lambardari cases Collector's order should not be upset by the Commissioner, unless it is perverse or unreasonable. If such basic importance is to be given to Collector's orders, it is all the more desirable that the property position at the time of his order should be considered decisive. We, therefore, hold that the Member, Board of Revenue was justified in ignoring the improvement of status after the Collector's order, and in setting aside the Commissioner's order reversing the perfectly reasonable order passed by the Collector. The revision petition is dismissed. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.