P L D 1966 W (PLP)

Ch. Qadir Bakhsh for Respondent. This order will dispose of the following two revisions:‑

(1) Said Muhammad v. Akbar Ali (Revision No. 429). (2) Rehmat All v. Akbar Ali (Revision No. 567). These two revisions have been filed against orders dated the 10th of December 1964, passed by Commissioner, Bahawalpur, whereby the appeals preferred by the two petitioners were dismissed. The facts of the case are that, when the question of appoint ing a permanent Lambardar came up for consideration, the parties applied for the post. After necessary enquiries and examination of the merits of the three contestants, the Collector appointed Akbar Ali as Lambardar. Said Muhammad and Rehmat Ali petitioners went in appeal to the Commissioner, but the appeals were ,dismissed. Hence these two revisions. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Rehmat Ali belongs to the minority community and does not own sufficient land which could be a guarantee against Government dues. He was, therefore, rightly rejected. Said Muhammad belongs to the majority community like the respondent, but he is illiterate and owns less area as compared with the respondent. The learned Collector, therefore, selected the respondent and this selection was confirmed by the learned Commissioner. Both the learned counsel for Said Muhammad and Rehmat Ali have laid great stress on the point that the respondent is a non‑resident. From the available record I find that his residence is given as this village itself. The learned counsel for Said Muhammad has, however, brought it to my notice that he was entered as a voter in Liaqatpur where he is alleged to be working as a commission agent and contractor. A person can vote where he resides or where he carries on his business. At any rate, both the learned Commissioner and the learned Collector have gone into this question of fact and have come to the conclusion that the respondent resides in the village. As a further precaution the learned Commissioner has issued the direction that the respon dent should take permanent residence in the village if he is not doing so already. Another point urged by the learned counsel for Said Muhammad is that the respondent has sold his entire land to Ghulam Rasul. In this connection, he has referred me entries in Khasra Girdawari wherein a mention is made about the sale., Khasra Girdawaries without a mutation being sanctioned cannot contain such entries. It is admitted that so far no mutation has, been sanctioned, and therefore, it cannot be presumed that the respondent has become landless. At any rate, if, at any future date, he ceases to own land in this village, he will not be able to hold the post of a Lambardar. In these circumstances, I see no justification for any interference with the concurrent findings of the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner. Both the revisions fail and are dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revisions dismissed.