P L D 1962 W (PLP)

A. M. K. LEGHARI-This is a revision from Collector Multan's order dated 16-5-1961, whereby he. rejected Islam-ud-Din Qassab, Bhutta petitioner's appeal and confirmed the Collector's selection of Muhammad Suleman Rajput respondent as Lambardar in the evacuee Patti of Ram Ditta Mal, Kotla Alidasti, Tehsil Lodhran. I give below the merits of the parties in terms of Land Revenue Rules: - 15-(a) Hereditary Claims: Was ex-Lambardar and Sufed Posh. 15-(b) Extent of property in the Estate at the time of Collector's Order 71-5 Acres 63-5 Acres 15-(c) Personal and family services: Petitioner scores heavily as apart from being ex-Lambardar and Sufed Posh, is a nominated member of the Union Council, Rajapur. In ad dition he has been a temporary Lambardar since 1948, and has 6 Commendation Certificates in support of his good work. 15-(d) Personal influence, character and freedom from indebtedness: The petitioner scores on the whole and has as such been recommended by all the lower Revenue Officers. 15-(e) Musters 9 Bhutta Qassab Families: Musters 39 Rajput families owning 674 acres. Respondent scores; he has the second majority community, since Baluchi families in the village number

58. Detailed arguments have been adduced by the senior counsel on behalf of the parties as to which of them should be considered to score under rule 15-(b). I had made it clear that I share the views hinted at in the Full Board ruling in P L D 1958 W P (Rev.) 109 and as adopted by my learned predecessor Mr. M. Z. Khan in P L D 1960 W. P. (Rev.) 66 that improvement in status after Collector's order should now be taken into account. On this basis detailed reports were received from the Collector, Multan, in his memo. No. 55244-M/HVC, dated 7-10-1961, which revealed that the petitioner owned 64 acres in this Chak upto the date of the Collector's order ; while the respondent owned 71-5 kanals.. However, it was further made clear that shortly before the Collector's order dated 29th July 1960, 300 kanals of land were transferred in the respondent's favour by his real brothers Muhammad Ilyas and Muhammad Ismail. I have no doubt in my mind that the transfer was Bainami and was effected with a view to bolstering up the respondent's claim to this Lambardari. Moreover copies of Khasra Girdwari entries have been produced to show that the area with the respon dent was largely banjar qadim and that 7 annas alone was being paid as land revenue in respect of it. The respondent has claimed that he has re-claimed most of it now by the installation of tube-well. But this is an occurrence subsequent to the Collector's order. As such I must hold that the petitioner scores con siderably over the respondent under Rule 15 (b) also. It will be evident from the foregoing that the petitioner scores heavily in four out of the five criteria laid down in Punjab Land Revenue Rule

15. It is clear from the Collector's order that he has preferred the respondent on the ground that he is from the second majority community of Rajputs. The Commissioner has approved him (respondent) on this ground as also because (i) He could not find any proof that the petitioner was an ex-Lambardar and Sufed Posh (ii) that the petitioner has 52 acres in the Patti against respondent's 71 acres ; and (iii) that on the whole the petitioner's residence in village Ali Dasti was doubtful. As for (i) above, the Collector had given a finding that the petitioner was ex-Lambardar and Sufed Posh and this fact is clear from his books and records and has not been challenged before me. As such no further proof is required. As for (ii), it will be clear from my detailed analysis above that the Commissioner's view that the respondent scores under rule 15 (b), is incorrect. With regard to the question of residence, I cannot find any room for doubt that the petitioner's residence in the village has been duly established. It has been shown as such in the petitioner 's Arms and Shooting Licence from 1951 to 1955. The Police Commendation Certificate dated 2-2-1958, shows him as resident of Kotla Ali Dasti, as also Tehsildar and Administrator, Lodhran's Commendation Certificate dated 27-10-1959. All these which date long before the question of the Lambardari became an issue, together with the fact that the petitioner has been a temporary Lambardar and has been recommended by all the Tehsil Revenue Officers and the Revenue Assistant corro borate his residence in the village. The counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the Commissioner's quotation in his order from ground 7 of his client's grounds of appeal is not altogether fair in that whereas he quoted the portion of his Ground No. 7 that because village Rajapur is contiguous and adjacent to this village even if his alleged residence in village Rajapur is taken to be correct will be no legal bar to his appointment as Lambardar, nor will it give any preference to the respondent over him as a confession but did not quote or refer to the following clear statement in that very ground: "That it is a fact that the appellant has permanent abode in the village Kotla Ali Dasti, where the appellant has a Dera and a residential house. The appellant had given up his residence in village Rajapur long ago in favour of his married, son." I agree with the counsel for the petitioner's contention that no doubt whatsoever could arise on the question of residence from Ground No. 7 of the petitioner's grounds of appeal before the Commissioner. I also agree that the fact that the petitioner was nominated as member of the Union Council Rajapur, does not make his residence in village Kotla Ali Dasti doubtful, since Kotla Ali Dasti is included in Union Council Rajapur. I think it must be clearly held that the petitioner is a bona fide resident of Kotla Ali Dasti. Thus all three assumptions, whereby the respondent by the Commissioner and the Collector, fall through. It remains to deal with the factor regarding strength and importance of the community as laid down in Punjab Land Revenue Rule 15 (e) Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Financial Commis sioner in his ruling reported as Atta Muhammad Khan v. Talib Hussain ( P L D 1952 Pb. (Rev.) 28), has made the following important observations in respect of this sub-rule: "The only consideration which weighs in favour of the respon dent is that he belongs to the Jat community of which there are 17 families in the Chak, while the petitioner, who is Pathan, is the solitary family in the Chak. I think an outsider Jat has as little influence with members of his tribes as any other outsider, and this consideration has no force, and this is the reason why the word `community' has been used in the rules and not tribe." The facts in the present case are that the respondent has been shown to be a resident of Chak No. 190/EB. Tehsil Vehari in the Voters list of 1958. I have recorded the statements of the respondent and his brothers Muhammad Ilyas and Muhammad Ismail. It is clear from these that they were residing in Vehari with their grandmother in the past. It seems to me that there is force in the petitioner's contention that they arrived some 8 months before the Collector's order in this case and had done nothing before then to cultivate allotments in the Chak, which had been made in their and their uncle's name in 1952 and, there fore, that property had remained banjar paying only 0-7-0 as Land Revenue. In so far as the village community was con cerned, therefore, they were more or less in the position of outsiders just as was found to be the ruling in Atta Muhammad Khan v. Talib Hussain quoted above. I would not normally interfere with concurrent decision of the Collector and the Commissioner in Lambardari case. But in the present case, it is clear that the Collector and the Commis sioner have arrived at the conclusions on wrong premises and considerations and have not selected the petitioner, who was the most suitable candidate as Lambardar. I, therefore, consider it a fit case for interference in revision. In the result, therefore, I accept the revision petition set aside the order of the Commissioner and Collector and appoint Islam-ud-din as Lambardar. NASIR AHMED.-I agree with the order dated 20-2-1962 dictated by Mr. A. M. Khan Leghari and announce it accepting the revision petition and appointing Islam-ud-Din as Lambardar. K. M. A. Petition accepted.