1999 PLP 796 (YLR)

The present revision petition has been filed under section 184 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, against the order of Additional Commissioner (Consoli dation), Sargodha Division, Sargodha, dated 8‑12‑1996, whereby he accepted the appeal filed by Abdul Sattar (respondent) against the order of D.C./Collector Khushab, dated 18‑8‑1994, through which he appointed Sadiq Ali (petitioner) as Lambardar of Chak No. 16/MB, Tehsil Noorpur, District Khushab.

2. I have heard the learned counsel of both the sides in detail.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner (Sadiq Ali) stated his father had been the Lambardar who died on 19‑11‑1979 but on 10‑9‑1979 the petitioner was appointed as temporary Lambardar. Abdul Sattar (respondent) went in appeal which was dismissed. One Abdul Bari challenged this order. In 1990 the said Chak became a proprietary Chak. The Naib‑Tehsildar proposed Amir Ali's name as Lambardar while Tehsildar recommended Sadiq Ali. Assistant Commissioner recommended Amir Ali. On 18‑8‑1994, the District Collector appointed Sadiq Ali as Lambardar. However, on 8‑12‑1996, Additional Commissioner appointed Abdul Sattar respondent as Lambardar. He stated that the allegations which have been forwarded against the petitioner had already been examined by the D.C./Collector and had been declared base less on the report of A.D.C.(G). He further stated that the petitioner was the eldest son of the deceased Lambardar and had a prior right for the appointment of Lambardar. He further stated that there was no distinction between the temporary Lambardar and permanent Lambardar under the rules. He stated that at the time of appointment of temporary Lambardar Abdul Sattar had been declared ineligible for illicit cultivation and he had never challenged these orders.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent stated that the petitioner had been appointed temporary Lambardar. His father had died on 19‑11‑1978. He stated that since the Chak became the proprietary Chak rule 17 of Land Revenue Rules become applicable and the rule of primogeniture was not applicable in this case. He stated that Abdul Sattar respondent had a superior right. While Sadiq Ali was an owner of 8 acres, Abdul Sattar was owner of 46 acres. Sadiq Ali belong to 'Theme' Rajput community who were only in seven in number in the Chak while Abdul Sattar belonged to Bhatti Rajput who were 56 owners in the Chak. He stated that the petitioner had been over‑charging.

5. In his right of reply the learned counsel for the petitioner re‑iterated that the allegations in which the petitioner had been exonerated cannot be referred to again and again.

6. I have given my careful thought to the arguments produced on both sides. The factual position is that Sadiq Ali petitioner is the eldest son of the deceased Lambardar who died on 19‑11‑1978. The petitioner was also appointed temporary Lambardar on 10‑9‑1979. There is no distinction of tempo rary Lambardar and permanent Lambardar under the existing rules. Once he had been appointed as Lambardar he could not be removed from this post arbitrarily without recourse to the proper procedural formalities. The so‑called allegations against him have already been examined by the Revenue Authorities and found to be baseless and incorrect. He being the eldest son of the deceased Lambardar as well as having been appointed as temporary Lambardar has a superior right over others. I, therefore, accept the revision petition and set aside the impugned orders. Q.M.H./M.A.K./95/Rev. Revision allowed.