P L D 1959 W (PLP)

Rajput Sukhera 1 149 Arain 20 112 Awan 5 83 Dogar 3 76 Pathan 40 60 Chughatta 6 43 Sayyad 2 19 Gujjar 1 17 The Zar‑bharat is as follows:-- Rs. Mal 3,950 Cesses 1,084 Abiana 4,922 8,956

3. The petitioner is a literate Dogar, owns 60 acres 4 kanals and 17 marlas (not 50 acres as mentioned by the Commissioner) and has a hereditary claim. The respondent is a Rajput Bhatti (it was conceded at the time of arguments that he can sign his name), owns 12 acres of land (not 15 acres) as mentioned by the Commissioner, was recommended by the Naib Tehsildar and acted as a temporary Lambardar.

4. The Commissioner held that the respondent has a heredi tary claim because his brother Abdullah was a Lambardar and Abdullah's son, Rafiq, relinquished his claim in favour of the respondent. The Central Record Room certificate shows that Abdullah's name is entered in the Lambardar's column of the Jamabandi, but is not given in the Shajra‑nasab in which Abdullah son of Saudagar is shown as a Lambardar. The name of the respondent's father is Saudagar and it is possible that the name of Abdullah has been entered in the Jamabandi and the nick name Dullah in the Shajra Nasab. That, however, does not help they respondent because it was admitted by him at the time of arguments that Rafiq had other brothers and they have not surrendered their claims before the Collector's order. That being so according to my finding in R. O. R. No. 178 of 1957‑58, the respondent has no hereditary claim.

5. My attention was drawn to P L D 1952 (Rev.) 28, in which the concurrent findings of the Collector and the Commis sioner were upset and the solitary Pathan in the village was appointed by the learned Financial Commissioner, although the person appointed by the Collector was a Jat; which was the predominant community in the Chak. A perusal of that ruling shows that the Pathan, who was appointed by the learned Financial Commissioner, was an old resident of the Chak, while the Jat, who had been appointed by the Collector was anew arrival. That being so my learned predecessor held that the Pathan was likely to have a greater community of interest with the residents of that Chak than a Jat, who was a recent arrival. The facts of the present case are different. In this case both the parties are new arrivals to the Chak and so it cannot be contended that the Dogar petitioner has greater community of interest with the residents of the Chak than the respondent. As both the parties came to the Chak after partition, the respondent had B greater prospects of acquiring community of interest with the Rajputs than the petitioner because the former belonged to their tribe.

6. It was urged that the total number of other communities in the Chak is also large and so the petitioner has a greater pros pect of acquiring community of interest with them than the respondent. This argument is untenable because so far as com munities other than Rajputs and Dogars are concerned, both the parties have equal claim of acquiring community of interest with them.

7. It is true that the petitioner has more property than the respondent, but the value of the property of the respondent comes n to Rs. 8,760, which is more or less equal to the Government demand. That being so the respondent cannot be disqualified on that ground.

8. The petitioner has a hereditary claim, but it has been held in R. O. R. No. 178 of 1957‑58 that this is one of the considera tions for appointment under Rule

15. As the number of Dogars is only about 1/26th of the Rajputs, this consideration cannot be allowed to prevail. It is a well established convention that the order of the Collector should not be upset in Lambardari cases unless it is unreasonable. In view of what is stated above the order of the Collector cannot be called unreasonable.

9. The result is that the petition is rejected. K. M. A Petition rejected.