P L D 1966 W (PLP)

Hafizullah for Respondent. This is a second appeal filed against an order dated the 19th of April 1963, passed by Commissioner, Lahore, whereby he accepted the appeal preferred by the respondent. The facts of the case are that, on the migration of the non‑Muslim Lambardar from the village, the post fell vacant. The parties along with others were contestants. The Collector, however, preferred the petitioner. The respondent along with other two claimants, preferred separate appeal before the Commissioner, Lahore Division, who accepted the respondent's appeal and appointed him as the Lambardar of this village. Hence this second appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The first question to decide this case is whether the refugees from Jammu and Kashmir State are to be debarred from being appointed as Lambardars on a permanent basis. In this connection, my learned predecessor has already ruled that, merely on this account, a contestant should not be overlooked. I am entirely in agreement with him and see no justification for laying down that refugees from Jammu and Kashmir will not be considered for appointment as Lambardars on a permanent basis. Now comes the question of determining as to which of the two claimants is more suitable for appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought it to my notice that the area allotted to the refugees from East Punjab is larger than that given to the refugees from Jammu and Kashmir State. It has never been laid down that refugees from a particular area form a distinct community. As examination of the record show's that there are eight Rajputs in this village and six Gujars. The claim of the petitioner on this account is slightly 'superior, but this is effect by the fact that he owns less area than the respondent. Moreover, the Collector was of the distinct opinion that, out of the two, the petitioner was the most suitable for appointment as a Lambardar. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the lower revenue officers did not recommend the petitioner. I have examined the record and find that the petitioner was overlooked merely because he was a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir State. Having considered all the aspects of the case, I feel that there was no valid justification for interfering with the order passed by the learned Collector. I, therefore, accept the second appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner and direct that the orders passed by the learned Collector shall stand. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.