P L D (Rev (PLP)

NASIR AHMAD.‑This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner, Multan Division, dated 17th August, 1955 by which he, reversed the order of the Collector, Lyallpur district, under which the latter had appointed Babu, the present appellant, Lambardar of Chak No. 145 R. B. district Lyallpur. The Commissioner appointed Abdul Ghani res pondent instead. The lambardari in dispute fell vacant as a result of the migration of non‑Muslims and it has to be considered a new appointment to be made under rule 15 of the Land Revenue Rules. The Collector was influenced by two factors in selecting Babu; firstly, that Babu had been a lambardar in his original home village and secondly that he belonged to the Jat tribe which are in majority in this estate. I have referred on more than one occasions to the confusion which continues to exist regarding these two words community and 'tribe' and considering them to be synonymous with each other. This is not necessarily so though in settled estates and in normal conditions persons belonging to the same tribe will undoubtedly have a large community ' of interests. Now Jats in this estate have come from the home district of Babu, but a larger number of refugees hail from Amritsar district to which Abdul Ghani, who is the choice of the Commissioner, belongs. It may therefore, be said with justification that a larger number of people have a community of interests with Abdul Ghani. As regards the first con sideration which weighed with the Collector it has already been observed that the appointment has to be considered a new one and hereditary claims are only one of the factors which have to be taken into account. The learned Com missioner thought that two acres of land which Babu at present holds is not sufficient to cover the land revenue demand of this estate which exceeds Rs. 10,000 ; in any case it does not give him the same amount of prestige and standing in the village community which is expected of a lambardar. The matter would be quite different if the lambardari were hereditary in character in which case it is also the hereditary influence and standing of the candidate which counts but where as a result of the mass exodus of Muslims the old village communities have been broken up and the pest influence of a family has little or no value in its new surroundings it would be incorrect to give that much weight to this factor as to make it decisive in character. For these reasons I would uphold the decision of the learned Commissioner and reject this appeal. A. H. Appeal rejected.