P L D 1963 W (PLP)

‑ Practice that Collector's order should not lightly be disturbed, not followed where Collector happened to be a junior officer. Azimuddin for Petitioner. Ghulam Ali Alvi for Respondent. This case relates to the Lambardari of village Bedian, District Lahore. The Collector had appointed the appellant Sher Muhammad who is a minor in one of the three vacancies which had occurred on account of the migration of non‑Muslims to India. The learned Additional Commissioner interfered in revision and the main grounds were ; firstly, that all the three Lambardaris had gone to one family though the displaced persons who had been allotted land in the estate had come from various places in India. Secondly, that the appellant was a minor and thirdly that it was incorrect to urge that Fajar Khan, the present respondent had no land in the patti to which the Lambardari related. A second appeal has now been filed. The main point taken up before me is that the respondent Fajar Khan was not entitled to consideration at all as he does not possess land in the patti to which the Lambardari relates. This contention is not founded on facts. The Jamabandi of village, a copy of which has been shown to me by the learned counsel for the respondent shows that there has been no formal sub‑division of the estate into pattis. Further that the non‑Muslim Lambardars were joint Lambardars after estate and at most they were given the Dhhal Bachh of certain land‑holders as a matter of administrative con venience and not because it was a pattidari estate. This contention is further fortified by the fact that at present the estate cannot be considered a pattidari village on historical or religious, tribal or caste considerations as the displaced persons who have been allotted land in it have come from various parts of India and are not connected in any way. Thus the factors are which would form the basis of a pattidari estate do not exist. In any case the fact remains that it was not and is still not a pattidari estate. The two other points which have been taken up briefly are, firstly, that the order of the Collector did not justify interference ; secondly, that Fajar Khan had not complied with the direction of the Additional Commissioner to produce security for payment of land revenue. The points do not merit very serious consideration. The second appellant is a minor and the Collector, who it may be said was not a Collector of the district but a Sub‑Divisional Officer exercising the powers of a Collector, did not give any consideration to the claims of the respondent. The earlier rulings that the choice of the Collector should not be lightly disturbed or set aside had reference to the conditions prevailing at the time when Collectors of districts held charge for reasonable periods and were in fact and not merely in theory conversant with the conditions prevailing in their charges, knew the merits of the parties and other relevant factors which taken together justified non‑interference in his choice. At present the powers' of Collector have been conferred on junior Officers and not necessarily Collectors of districts only who hold charge for short period and though consideration must be given and is being given to the selection made by them this cannot be of the same order as in the earlier days. As regards the third point that the order of the Additional Commissioner bad not been complied with it has been denied on behalf of the respondent and it is urged that the requisite amount of security has been given. As would be apparent from the above discussion that the learned Additional Commissioner had good reasons for inter ference, and I would reject the revision petition. K. M. A. Revision rejected.