P L D 1962 W (PLP)

(a) Lambardar‑Appointment ‑ "Hereditary claim"‑Relevant in "first appointment", not to succession‑Punjab Land Revenue Rules, r. 15. (b) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Widow of deceased incumbent-- Not vested with any "hereditary claim"‑Rule of primogeniture contained in r. 17 (ii), Punjab Land Revenue Rules inapplicable‑ [Mst. Jiwani v. Ganga Ram P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 980 dis tinguished]. Abdul Khaliq for Appellant. Nayyar Sultan Ahmad for Respondent. This is a second appeal against the order of the Commis sioner, Bahawalpur Division, appointing the respondent Mst. Mai Gamal, widow of the deceased Lambardar, Rai Sultan Muhammad of village Sardar Garh, District Rahimyarkhan as Lambardar. The Collector had appointed the appellant Abdul Ghafoor but the learned Commissioner intervened on the ground that the Lambardari was hereditary in character and the widow was therefore entitled to succeed. I am afraid this view of "hereditary claim" as mentioned in Land Revenue Rule 15 is erroneous This is admittedly not a first appointment, and the proper rule which governs it is Rule 17 (ii) ix. the rule of primogeniture. The widow does not belong to the family of the deceased Lambardar as the word is understood in common parlance and her appoint ment does not fall within the provisions of Rule

17. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred me to Mst. Jiwani v. Ganga Ram (P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 980), in which case the appointment of the widow of a deceased Lambardar was upheld by the Financial Commissioners. The point in issue in that case was different and so were its circum stances. In that case the village consisted of a dozen land‑holders and the widow had married into the family of the founder of the village. The two Financial Commissioners who heard the case, Maynard and Fagan F. Cs, remarked that "this feature does not give her a right to the appointment but it may properly .be taken into account. " Thus it was not conceded by the learned Financial Commissioners that the widow had a right to succeed on the strength of her hereditary claim but in tee special circums tances of the case namely that she was the sole surviving representative of the family of the founder and the number of land‑holders was about a dozen her appointment was allowed to stand. Besides she had a large holding of 276 bighas. The circumstances of the case under consideration are very different. The estate has a very large number of proprietors about 300, who belong to different tribes. The widow has a very small area of about 8 acres in the estate and it is not sufficient even to cover the land revenue demand. In any case the fact that she is the widow of the deceased Lambardar does not entitle her to claim the Lambardari under Land Revenue Rule 17 (if) and the stand taken by the learned Commissioner in applying Land Revenues Rule 15 is erroneous. I would accordingly accept this second appeal set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner and restore that of the Collector. A. H. Appeal accepted.