P L D 1959 W (PLP)

5. Later on when conditions settled down instructions were issued in F. C.'s Memo. No. 1003‑R, dated 5‑5‑1953, in which it was stated that in making permanent appointments cases of candidates should be considered on merits. These instructions do not say that hereditary claims should get the same weight E as given by Rule 19 (A). Further Instructions were issued in F. C.'s Memo. No. 3580‑R, dated 18‑12‑53, which laid down that permanent appointments in evacuee vacancies are governed by Rule 15 of the Land Revenue Rules. The latest Instructions on the subject are contained in F. C.'s Memo. No. 3832‑54/1730‑R, dated 13‑7‑

54. Para. 1 (iii) of this Memo. lays down that "at the time of conversion of these temporary Lambardar into permanent ones the appointment should be treated as first appointment and the principles contained in rule 15 ibid should be followed. In case of refugees, if they or their predecessors in interest were Lambardars they should be considered as possess ing hereditary claims as envisaged in Rule 15 (A) of the Land Revenue Rules and the land obtained by them under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme shall be considered at par with the land owned for the purposes of these appointments". These instructions do not take the place of rules, but are a guide to the direction in which the mind of the F. C.'s or the Board of Revenue was working. They clearly indicate that it was not intended to give special weight on the lines of rule 19 (A) to hereditary claims in making permanent Lambardari appointments in evacuee estates. They clearly indicate that Muslim migrating Lambardars brought with them their hereditary rights which were to be considered under Rule 15 (A) of the Land Revenue Rules. This could reasonably be done if migrating non‑Muslim Lambar dars carried with them their hereditary rights thus creating vacancies. If that was not so, the result would be that Muslim migrating Lambardars would bring with them their hereditary claims and there may be no Lambardari in Pakistan from which their claims could be satisfied, as these Lambardaris would go to the relations of the migrating non‑Muslims.

6. There are strong reasons for this view. As a result of migration the position as it existed in a village in West Pakistan changed completely. Thus "A", an ex‑Rajput non‑Muslim Lambardar in Pakistani village "B", may be the head of the Rajput tribe in that village which constituted ninety per cent of the population. As a result of Independence Rajputs might have become a non‑entity in village ‑ "B". That being so, the heirs of "A" in village "B" could not legitimately be given the right of appointment under Rule 17 (ii).

7. It has also to be noted that, if the appellant really thought that this case was governed by Rule 17 (ii), he should have taken up that plea at the time the temporary appointment was made and should have contended that there was no question of making an appointment under Rule 19 (A) of the Land Revenue Rules since appointment was to be made under Rule 17 (ii). His failure to do so all these years shows that he himself felt that his claim could not be substantiated. An appoint ment having been made under Rule 19 (A), all claims to appoint ment under Rule 17 (ii) came to an end. Such claims could not reasonably be reviewed when appointment was to be made subsequently on a permanent basis.

8. In view of what is stated above, I hold that this case should be dealt with under Rule 15 and not under Rule 17 (ii) of the Land Revenue Rules even if appellant Abdur Rehman is an heir of Jaimal Singh, the evacuee Lambardar. I am supported in this view by the ruling contained in Muhammad Shafi v. Mushtaq Ahmed (P L D 1958 W P (Rev.) 17).

9. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that initially, the Commissioner held in his order dated 3‑9‑57 that this case was governed by Rule 17 (ii) and so he could not review his own order subsequently. In his order dated 3‑9‑57 the Commissioner has not come to any such finding, as is attributed to him. That order is an interim order in which he has observed that prima facie the case was governed by Rule 17 (ii) of the Land Revenue Rules. He made certain enquiries from the Collector before coming to a final decision which is contained in his order which is the subject matter of this appeal.

10. The tribal composition of this Patti is as follows:‑ Tribe No. of families Area in acres Rajputs 192 1031 Arain ... 72 187 Jat ... 6 15 Syed ... 4 12 Moghul ... 1 3 Jhiwar 2 223 Khera. (Nau Muslims) 6 724 Beloch 12 102

11. The appellant is an Arora Khera, and owns 175 acres of land. In view of my finding he has no hereditary claim.

12. The respondent is a Rajput, which is the predominant tribe, holds 18 acres of land, worked as a temporary Lambardar and left a hereditary claim in two villages in India. In view of these facts and my finding that this case is governed by Rule 15 of the Land Revenue Rules, there was no reasonable ground for appointing the appellant as Lambardar; and there was ample justification for the order passed by the learned Commissioner.

13. The result is that the appeal is dismissed. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.