P L D 1964 W (PLP)

(a) Lambardar‑

Appointment--‑Mere fact that one of candidates having more land is no ground for interference in revision, particular, when decisions of Collector and Commissioner are unanimous. (b) Lambardar‑

Collector may remove sarbrah and direct Lambardar to perform functions of post himself. (c) Lambardar‑

Appointment‑Mere proceedings against person under S. 107, Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), does not entitle him to be appointed as Lambardar, when allegations were not proved. The case before me relates to the Lambardari of Chak No. 188/NB, district Sargodha. The post had fallen vacant because the last Lambardar had sold away his entire holding. The con test was between the petitioner Muhammad Mumtaz Khan and the respondent Niaz Muhammad Khan. Both of theta belong to military families, are literate and have served the admi nistration well in several ways. Muhammad Mumtaz Khan is a bigger landholder than his rival being in possession of 200 acres but Niaz Muhammad Khan is a big enough landlord too as he owns 100 acres of land in this estate. The former has also personal military service to his credit but the latter has served the civil administration well in some other ways. The Collector appointed Niaz Muhammad Khan and the main reason which seems to have prompted him was that Muhammad Mumtaz Khan held an hereditary Lambardari in another village. The learned Commissioner has maintained this order in appeal. Muhammad Mumtaz Khan has filed the present revision petition against this order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to take me into the merits of the cases for the two candidates. As already observed both of them seem equally well suited for the post and the mere fact that one of them is a bigger landlord of the two would be scant justification for interference in revision, particularly when the Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner both have come to a unanimous decision, Muhammad Mumtaz Khan is a Lambardar in another village where it is urged that he has appointed a sarbrah but it is open to the Collector at any time to order removal of a sarbrah and' direct the Lambardar to perform the functions of the post himself I. A point has been urged against Niaz Muhammad Khan namely that he was involved in a case under section 107, Cr. P. C. in 1950, but was discharged. It cannot be considered a disquali fication under the Rules nor would it be taken as a blot on his character when the allegations against him were not held proved by a competent Court. He has admitted that he was involved in Khatme Nabuwwat agitation and offered himself for arrest. This seems a somewhat debatable point if in the circumstances prevailing at the time it should be considered against a person to have taken the step which he did take of his own accord without any action having been initiated against him by the authorities The Police and the district administration have given both the candidates a good character. It has been urged that the peti tioner had doubtful antecedents but there is nothing on the record to warrant such an inference either. As already held in several cases a revision petition is not a re‑assessment or a reappraisal of the merits of the two candidates in a Lambardari case and if sufficient grounds do exist to justify the choice of a candidate by the Collector the mere fact that the revising authority if it were considering the case as an original matter may have come to a different conclusion is not sufficient to warrant interference in revision. As a result I would decline to interfere in the order passed and reject the revision petition. K. M. A. Revision rejected.