P L D 1964 W (PLP)

Appointment‑Opinions expressed in reports of Revenue officers‑--Not necessarily to be followed while deciding Lambardari case‑Facts stated in such reports to be taken into con sideration but inferences drawn there from can be different. (b) Lambardar

‑Appointment‑Candidate belonging to majority tribe but holding smaller area‑Preferred to person possessing bigger holding‑Tribal considerations. This is a Lambardari case and the facts briefly are that the Collector, Thal Project Colony, Jauharabad, appointed Imam Bakhsh Shah appellant as a temporary Lambardar of Chak No. 109/ML, district Muzaffargarh. The learned Com missioner, Multan interfered in appeal on the main ground that the appellant is a Syed and there are 7 Syed families in the Chak against 47 families of Rajputs the tribe to which the respondent belongs. His view further was that the holding of Imam Bakhsh Shah was in a fluid state so that with certainty he could be stated to be in possession of only a small area of 3 acres owing to his litigation with the Thal Development Authority. He, therefore, set aside the appointment of Imam Bakhsh Shah and appointed Imam Din as Lambardar in his place. A second appeal has now been preferred. A preliminary objection was taken by the learned counsel for the respondent that a second appeal is competent only on a point of law and no legal point has been raised in the appeal which could justify interference. Mr. Karam Elahi Chuhan the learned counsel for the appellant contended that it has been laid down by the Financial Commissioners and the Board of Revenue that the decision of the Collector in a Lambardari case should not be set aside unless it is perverse or foolish, and as the decision of the Collector in this case did not suffer from this defect the Commissioner committed a legal error in not follow in the law laid down. It was further contended that the appellant possesses more land than the respondent and also commands more inference and respect in the locality. The learned Commissioner has thus drawn wrong inferences and conclusions from facts and this would be a question of law on which interference in second appeal would be competent. An analysis of the Collector's order as carried out by the learned Commissioner would show that it was not sustainable. The appellant belongs to a minority tribe and though it is also true that as the result of a stay order issued by the High Court he is in possession of a much larger area than that held by the respondent this position is not certain as a result of litigation started by the appellant himself. The fact also remains that whatever may be said against the existence of tribal considerations, village communities are greatly influenced by them. The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to take me through the reports of Revenue Officers but as already held by me in some other cases the opinions expressed in these reports need not necessarily be followed by Revenue Officers who have to decide Lambardari case. The facts stated in these reports are certainly to be taken into account but inferences drawn from these facts may well be and can be different. It would not be correct to say that if the Commissioner in appeal arrives at a different inference from facts the decision of the Commissioner should be set aside. The point for consideration is whether inferences drawn by the Collector from facts are reasonable or not. As already observed it would be definitely unreasonable to assume that the person belonging to a minority tribe consisting of almost five or six families in a village could exercise greater influence than a Rajput with about fifty families at his back or he could be a better Lambardar capable of performing efficiently and satisfactorily the duties of his office. It is true that though the appellant is entitled to a bigger holding than the respondent it is not certain where this holding will be situated. It may not fall in this estate as a result of litigation with the Thal Development Authority. In my opinion therefore the decision arrived at by the Commissioner is proper and correct and I would dismiss the appeal. S. Q. Appeal dismissed.