P L D 1966 W (PLP)

This order will dispose of the following two revisions:‑

(1) Tufail Muhammad v. Muhammad Shafi Revision No. 1986. (2) Nasir Ahmad v. Muhammad Shafi Revision No. 1976. These two revisions have been filed against orders, dated the 2nd of June 1964, passed by Commissioner, Sargodha, whereby the appeals preferred by the petitioners were rejected. The facts of the case are that a vacancy was created on account of the migration of the non‑Muslim Lambardar. At the time of filling up this vacancy permanently, 23 candidates applied. There were some withdrawals and ultimately the vacancy was contested by 13 candidates including the parties. Considering the claims of all, the Collector appointed the respondent. The petitioners went in appeals to the Commissioner, but both the appeals were dismissed. Hence these revisions. I have heard the learned counsel for Tufail Muhammad. His main contention is that, because the respondent has been bound down under section 107, Cr. P. C., he should not have been appointed as a Lambardar. In this connection, he has referred me to P L D 1959 W. P. (Rev.) 68 and P L D 1963 W. P. (Rev.)

3. In both the rulings, the principle laid down is quite clear that merely being bound down under, section 107, Cr. P. C., does not automatically debar a person from being considered for the post of Lambardar. So far as the legal position is concerned, it is quite clear that the proceedings under section 107, Cr. P. C. would be covered by rule 16 (ii) (c) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. If a person is bound down under section 107, Cr. P. C., the Collector has the discretion to dismiss him or to let him continue as a Lambardar. If the Collector has the discretion not to dismiss the Lambardar after he had been bound down under section 107, Cr. P. C., he will certainly have the discretion to appoint as Lambardar a person who has been so bound down. The learned counsel pointed out that the respondent was once challaned, but was acquitted, that there was a case under section 457, P. P. C. but he was not challaned and that there is a case pending under section 307, P. P. C. against the respondent. In the first case, the respondent was acquitted and, in the second, he was not challaned. So far as the third case is concerned, no definite result has yet come out of the proceedings pending against him. None of these considerations would justify ignoring the claim of the respondent if he was otherwise suitable for appoint ment as Lambardar. The learned counsel for. Tufail Muhammad petitioner has also pointed out that there are three different reports giving different figures for the strength of the various communities. In all these reports, however, Gujars are shown as the predominating community to which the respondent belongs. The learned counsel for Nasir Ahmad also referred me to the two rulings mentioned above. I need not say anything more what I have said in the preceding paragraphs. Having considered all the aspects of the case, 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. Petition dismissed.