P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)

4. The Collector observed that the petitioner is not residing in the Chak, and is employed in a Transport Company at Lyallpur. According to the Commissioner there is no evidence on the file to this effect. A report was called for from the Collector. It shows that the petitioner has been permanently residing in the Chak since 1955‑56 i.e. before the Collector passed his order in this case.

5. It was, stressed on behalf of the respondent that a Sarbrah can be appointed for him under rule 27 of the Land Revenue Rules. The appointment of a Sarbrah is not meant for such cases, but is intended for contingencies where a suitable resident of the village has been appointed, but temporary arrange ments have to be made to carry on the work while he is unable to perform the duties of his office in person, by reason of old age, physical infirmity or absence from his circles with the permission of the Collector. This view was expressed in R. O. R. No. 99 of 1957‑58.

6. The respondent relied on :‑ (i) P L D 1959 (Rev.) 96, (ii) P L D 1950 Rev.) 1009, (iii) P L D 1950 (Rev.) 1055, and (iv) .P L D 1950 (Rev.) 1243. (i) In P L D 1959 (Rev.) 96, an educated local absentee Jat with considerable connections with rural activities was pre ferred by Mr. H. A: Majid, M.B.R., to a Mughal, who was a resident of the estate One of the grounds for that decision was that a Mughal had already been appointed in the other Patty. There are a large number of rulings of the contrary. These rulings were given before and after Mr. Majid's ruling. Mr. Majid himself held a contrary view in P L D 1957 (kev.) 27, where he observed that a candidate may be ignored on the ground that he is a Government Servant and is unable to reside in the village. (ii) P L D 1950 (Rev.) 1004, relates to a hereditary Lambardari and one of the reasons for that decision was that the tribe of Karam Illahi, the successful candidate, was larger and, if he were to be ignored, that tribe would have been left without representation. The case before me is not of hereditary Lambardari and the question of tribal representation does not arise both parties are Jats. (iii) P L D 1950 (Rev.)105) deals with the question whether a person should be disqualified for appointment under the rule of primogeniture only because he was appointed as Patwari. (iv) P L D 1950 (Rev.) 1243, does not give full faces of the case, but it appears to deal with a hereditary Lambardari and the order was passed as a result of an agreement am ng the parties. Obviously none of the rulings relied upon by the respondent is applicable to the present case.

7. In P L D 1950 Ph. (Rev.) 534, it was held that "an absentee must not be appointed Lambardar when a suitable candidate is available". In P L D 1957 '(Rev.) 35‑36, it was held that a non‑resident should not be appointed as Lambardar. In P L D 1959 (rev.) 151, decided on 7‑2‑59, I held after considering various rulings on the subject that an absentee should not be appointed as Lambardar. The reason for not appointing an absentee is that he cannot be helpful to the local officers in administrative matters on account of his absence, P L D 1950 (Rev ) 226, went so far to lay down that even in a hereditary Lambardari, an absentee heir should not be appointed even if he promises to reside in the village because "it is obvious that if he did so reside in Chak No. 177/G. B. he would be regarded as interloper by the other old established residents of the estate." The respondent has not even suggested that he proposes, to reside in the Chak.

8. An absentee has perforce to act through his Sarbrah For practical purposes the Sarbrah is the de facto Lambardar That being so it is unfair to compare the merits of the candidate, who is to work as Lambardar himself, with another who is to work through some one else. The rulings which have been discussed make it clear that an absentee should not be appointed as Lambardar if a suitable candidate, who resides in the village, is available.

9. It would thus appear that the appointment of the respondent being contrary to a chain of rulings was unreasonable. The result is that the petition is allowed and the petitioner is appointed as Lambardar of Chak No. 88/J. B., Tehsil Lyallpur. K. M. A. Petition accepted.