P L D 1959 W (PLP)

These three petitions may be taken up together as they relate to the same order. They are under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against order dated 2‑9‑57, passed by the Commissioner, Multan Division, by which he upheld order dated 2‑4‑57, passed by the Collector of Lyallpur, appointing the respondent as Lambardar of Patti Bhagat Singh Chak No. 27/J.B., Tehsil and District Lyallpur. The vacancy arose as a result of the migration of the non Muslim Lambardar. As more than seventy five per cent of the evacuee area has been confirmed in favour of refugees, the appoint ment was made on a permanent basis. The tribal composition of Patti Bhagat Singh is as follows :‑ Number Area Rajputs 109 419 Jats ... 62 232 The other Patti is exclusively inhabited by Rajputs and a Rajput has been appointed as Lambardar in that Patti. Fateh Muhammad has produced the Central Record Room certificate, showing that he was a Lambardar. Thus all the parties have hereditary claims. Petitioner, Rahmat Khan is a Rajput and owns 16 Kanals of land. It is noted in the record that he has purchased 28 Kanals of land from Government, but that the mutation has not yet been entered. The Tehsildar's report shows that his collection was poor and that distress warrants had to be issued against him. The Revenue Assistant has described him as a defaulter. If a person has worked as temporary Lambardar, as Rehmat Khar 4 has done, and has worked successfully, that is a qualification for him, but, if he has been unsuccessful as a Lambardar, that goes against him, as in the present case. Petitioner, Maula Bakhsh, owns 72 Kanals and 13 Marlas of land. He is a Jat. 1n view of the fact that there is con siderable disparity between the number of Rajputs and Jats in in this Patti, the mere fact that a Rajput has been appointed as Lambardar in the other Patti, cannot give any special claim to the appointment of a Jat in this Patti. Maula Bakhsh is also very old and for this reason it has been noted by the Revenue Assistant that he can produce a Sarbarah. The question of appointing such a person could have arisen if no other suitable candidate was available. Fateh Muhammad is a Rajput and owns 59 Kanals and 5 Marlas of land out of which 33 Kanals is encumbered. He has not been recommended by any Revenue Officer. The respondent is a Rajput and owns 42 Kanals and 8 Marlas of land. He is literate and has been recommended by the Additional Tehsildar and the Tehsildar. The only point against him is that he was convicted under section 313/147, P. P. C. in 1937. He filed an affidavit that he was acquitted on appeal. A counter‑affidavit has been filed that‑ he was not so acquitted. There is no finding by the Collector or the Commis sioner whether he was acquitted. Once it has been proved that a person was convicted, if he claims that he was acquitted on appeal, it is for him to prove that assertion. That the respondent has failed to do in the present case. It is true that this conviction is no bar to his appointment as a Lambardar, but when a case of fresh appointment is under consideration there is, no reason why a person so convicted should be appointed if another candidate suitable in all respects is available. Such a candidate is not available in the present case as would appear from the observations made in respect of each petitioner. That being so and also in view of the fact that the views of the Collector and the Commissioner are entitled to great weight in such cases, I do not find sufficient grounds for interference in revision. The result is that all the three petitions are rejected. A. H. Petitions rejected.