P L D 1964 W (PLP)

‑Absentee lambardar can be dismissed. Khawaja Abdur Rahim for Petitioner. Rao Muhammad Ashfaq Khan for Respondent. The facts of this Lambardari appeal which relates to Chak No. 57‑WB, District Multan are briefly as follows :‑ The original post had fallen vacant due to the migration of non‑Muslims to India and the Collector appointed the petitioner Niaz Muhammad as a temporary Lambardar. Subsequently, applications were invited for filling the post permanently and the Collector's choice again fell upon Niaz Muhammad. In appeal the learned Additional Commissioner intervened and set aside the appointment on the ground that he was not fully convinced that Niaz Muhammad was a permanent resident of Chak No. 57‑WB the estate to which the Lambardari relates. There were certain circumstances which justified this doubt. Briefly enumerated these are that appellant bolds one square of land in Chak No. 105‑WB which is almost twice the extent of his property in this estate. He had contested the Lambardari of the former estate which adjoins Chak No. 57‑WB. There were certain other circumstances to the contrary which showed that he resided in Chak No. 57‑WB. For instance he is shown as a voter of this Chak and not of Chak No. 105‑WB. A number of certificates and official correspondence also give indication to the same effect. The Collector was accordingly asked to report what was the exact position. The report submitted by him is not very clear but the scales seem to weigh in favour of the appellant. Another point has also been urged against the appellant, Niaz Muhammad, namely, that he is not a desirable person as he was involved in proceedings under section 107, Cr. P. C. It is also alleged that his name was entered in the list of bad characters at the time of migration from India. Neither of these contentions are fully established. On the contrary the Police report regarding the character of the appellant is that there was nothing against him. It is true that he was involved in a case under section 107, Cr. P. C., but it is urged that these proceedings ended in his discharge. There is thus no proof that he was an undesirable person, not fit to perform the duties of a Lambardar. Apparently the facts are that the appellant holds land in two adjoining estates and he was appointed a temporary Lambardar in both the estates. He tried to get the permanent Lambardari in Chak No. 105‑WB but failed. He thereupon seems to have shifted permanently to the other estate instead of gyrating between the two places. In any case both the estates adjoin each other and as observed by the Collector it would not adversely affect the administration if he were appointed Lambardar. In case it was subsequently found that he had shifted his residence from Chak No. 57‑WB he can always be dismissed on the ground of being an absentee. In my opinion the decision arrived at by the Collector was justified. I would accordingly accept the appeal and appoint Niaz Muhammad as Lambardar. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.