P L D 1964 W (PLP)

Appeal No. 168 of 1962‑63, decided on 26th August 1963, District Jhang. Lambardar

‑Appointment‑Temporary vacancy‑Person removed from vice on ceasing to be landowner in estate need not be reappointed on acquiring land subsequently to his dismissal and prior to new appointment. Charan Singh v. Fazal P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 151 and Faqira v, Manga P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 736 distinguished. This second appeal relates to filling a temporary Lambardari of Chak No. 482/JB, District Jhang. The respondent Manzoor Hussain had been a temporary Lambardar of this estate where Government still own a major part of the land and the Lambardari has not yet been notified as permanent in character. He sold away his entire holding in the estate and was consequently dis missed. Applications for the vacant post were invited; but before the Collector passed his final order Manzoor Hussain again acquir ed some land, to be precise, nice acres in area in the Patti to which the Lambardari relates. The Collector, however, appointed Ghulam Rasul appellant on the ground that he belonged to the majority tribe of Arains, and owned sufficient landed property, about 9 acres in his Patti and about J square in another Patti of this very estate. He and his family had also rendered service to the administration and commanded influence as is evidenced by the fact' that his father is a Member of the Local Union Council and had been Member of the District Board. The learned Com missioner interfered is appeal and in doing so he relied on Charon Singh v. Fazal (P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 151) in which it has been held that in case a Lambar dar is dismissed on account of a disqualification which does not involve a moral defect he has a strong case to be re‑appointed if he has cured the defect by the time the order is passed. Thus a person who has been removed from the post of a Lam bardar because he has ceased to be a landowner in the Patti may be re‑appointed Lambardar if before the re‑appointment he has acquired land therein. This ruling followed the observation made by Tupper, F. C., in an earlier case; Faqira v. Manga (P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 736) in which it was observed that it would be inexpedient to change a Lambar dar if a change can be avoided. Thus if a Lambardar is able to provide sufficient security for the recovery of land revenue for which he is responsible he should not be dismissed for indebted ness. The main distinction between these cases and present one is that this Lambardari is temporary in character and hereditary. The mere fact that the post is temporary indicates that it does not have the lasting character and nature of a permanent appoint ment, and the observations made by my learned and distinguished predecessors apply to the latter category of posts. Manzoor Hussain according to his own admission before me has about 4 or 5 squares of land in the adjoining Jhang Tehsil and a copy of the jamabandi produced by Khawaja Abdur Rahim counsel for the petitioner shows that he is now a resident there. Thus if he is not actually an absentee, he is most likely to be one. In these circumstances it would not be correct and proper to reappoint him a Lambardar in this Chak particularly when there is only one Turak family, the tribe to which the respondent belongs, living in this Patti. Thus in my opinion the decision arrived at by the Collector is correct. I would accordingly accept the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner and restore that of the Collector. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.