P L D 1962 W (PLP)

Ghulam Muhammad Lambardar of Chak No. 343/J.B., Tehsil Toba Tek Singh, sold his land and was, therefore, removed from the post of Lambardar on 23‑6‑1959. The Collector, Lyallpur, under his order dated 14‑1‑1961, appointed his younger uncle Rab Nawaz. Baqir Khan, his elder uncle went up in appeal to the Commissioner who rejected it. Hence the present revision. It is distressing to find that the Officers below have taken a wrong view f n a case which clearly had to be decided in accor dance with the rules of primogeniture. The reason advanced by the Collector for ignoring this rule is that: ‑ "in the present case none of the nearest heirs of the removed Lambardar has applied for this post. I, therefore, do not consider it a hereditary post and decide to fill up this vacancy according to provisions of rule 17 (iii) which says that failing the appointment of an heir, successor to the office shall be appointed in the manner and with regard to the considerations described in rule 15." The Commissioner's observations on the subject are as follows: ‑ "It has been contended by the counsel for the appellant that the Collector has erred In dealing with this case under rule 15, instead of rule 17 (ii) of the Land Revenue Rules, He referred to the provisions contained in rule 17 (ii) of the said rules according to which the nearest eligible heir according to rule of primogeniture has a right to succeed. He has further urged that since the appellant is elder brother of the respondent, his appointment should have been made against the vacancy in preference to the latter, in view of the rules referred to above and other rulings quoted by him. The counsel for the res pondent pleads that in the absence of any heir of the deceased who could inherit his property, the appointment will be governed by rule

15. The contention put forth by the counsel for appellant is no doubt forceful but the fact remains that the respondent, though junior to the appellant has better claim in all respects as compared to his elder brother. This is a matter of choice between the two brothers, and the Collector while selecting the respondent as Lambardar has exercised his dis cretion in a reasonable manner." It must be pointed out that the rules give the Collector no discretion and prescribe the appointment of nearest relative by primogeniture. The Collector's remarks to the contrary are not understood Rule 17 (ii) (b) enumerates four contingencies on account of which the Collector may refuse to appoint any of the heirs of a dismissed Lambardar. None of these four contingen cies even remotely applies in the present case. If only the Collector had referred to rule 17 (ii) (b), he would have realized that he had no option but to follow the rule of primogeniture. He ought not to have flouted the clear provisions of rule 17 (ii) without indicating under which sub‑clause of rule 17 (ii) (b) be considered that he had a discretion to appoint anyone not the nearest heir by rule of primogeniture. Time and again cases are coming up to the Board of Revenue simply because the subor dinate Officers do not take the trouble of referring to the rule governing the decision of the case and, therefore, pass incorrect orders based on wrong premises. Their carelessness on this point is a cause of great harassment and expense to the parties and needlessly adds to the Board's work to have no hesitation in laying down that revenue authorities in dealing with judicial cases must quote the Act or Rule with section, subsection and sub -clause as meticulously as is done by Civil Judges and Magistrates in Civil and Criminal cases. Both the counsel for the respondents are unable to show that any of the four sub‑clauses of rule 17 (ii) (b) are applicable. This case has, therefore, to be decided in accordance with the rule of primogeniture and the petition succeeds. In the result, therefore, I accept the revision petition set aside the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner and appoint Baqir Khan as Lambardar. A. H. Petition accepted.