P L D 1964 W (PLP)

(c) Appeal‑

Second appeal competent only on point of law. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Appellant. Feroz Din and Ghulam Abbas Jaffari for Petitioners. Aftab Hussain and Jehangir Ali for Respondents. This order will dispose of the two Revision Petitions Nos. 557 and 633 of 1962‑63 and Appeal No. 89 of 1962‑63 which have been filed against the same order of the learned commissioner, Sargodha, passed on 7‑11‑1962. The facts briefly are that Farzand Ali Shah. deceased, the original Lambardar of 78 NB, District Sargodha had no son and, his only daughter did not apply for the post, which fell vacant on his death, The Collector appointed Abdus Sattar, the present appellant. Four appeals were filed against his appointment by Abdul Ghafoor, the present respon dent, Nazir Hussain Shah and Irshad Ali, the two petitioners who have come up in revision and one Shaukat Ali. The learned Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector and appointed Abdul Ghafoor the present respondent as Lambardar in place of Abdus Sattar. The main reasons for his interference were that though Abdus Sattar was suitable for the appointment, he had taken multifarious duties and was not likely to give sufficient time towards discharging his responsibilities as a Lambardar. Besides he did not belong to the majority tribe in the estate. Abdus Sattar has come up in second appeal and Nazir Hussain Shah and Irshad Ali in revisions against the order of the Commissioner. I will take up the two revisions first. Nazir Hussain Shah is the son‑in‑law of the deceased Lambardar and is a retired Sub‑Inspector of Police but he did not possess any land in the estate till 31‑12‑1962 i.e., till after the decision of the appeal by the Commissioner. He did own land in an adjoining estate which somehow as the result of consolidation operation he got transferred to Chak No.

78. His claims on the ground of relationship with the deceased Lambardar were rightly overlooked as he was not landowner in the estate at the time. Irshad Ali belongs to the Rajput tribe which constitutes one of the minor tribes in this estate. There is nothing particular to commend him except that it is claimed that his father was al Lambardar in India. But his elder brother has been appointed a Lambardar in another estate, so his hereditary claim also has no force left. The case for Abdus Sattar is that he belongs to a good family, is the biggest landlord of all the candidates, is well educated and will thus be very suitable for the post. The learned Commissioner's view was that the appellant is Vice‑Chairman of the Market Committee, Sargodha. He is a shareholder in a commission shop at Phularwan and has house in Sargodha town. He, therefore, concluded that as a result of these factors he was not likely to be a good choice. It was argued that as he himself resides in the estate these activities are not of such a nature as would stand in the way of his being a successful Lambardar. Interference by the Commissioner was thus not justified as most of the factors which are considered when making the appointment of a Lambar dar were in favour of the appellant. As already stated above the Commissioner's view, was different. He felt that it was unreasonable to appoint a person who had his fingers to many pies, was leaning towards commercial activities, was in all probability a resident of Sargodha town and did not represent the majority community in the estate. These obviously form good grounds for interference. As regards the Commissioner's own choice it is urged that Abdul Ghafoor himself is an absentee from the estate but the officers below have not found against him in this respect. He represents the Arain tribe who are by far in a dominant majority in this estate, is literate though not as highly educated as the appellant and owns sufficient landed property though he is not as big a landlord as Abdus Sattar and his family. Apart from being a representative of the major community, the point in his favour is that he is basically a Zamindar pure and simple and does not have any other activities. It has also been argued and this is an important point that second appeal is competent only on a point of law. Khawaja 4 Abdur Rahim on behalf of appellant when asked to clarify the legal issue involved, however, requested that the appeal may be considered as a revision petition. As already discussed by me above, there were good grounds for the Commissioner to set aside the appointment of Abdus Sattar. I would, therefore, decline to interfere in his decision and dismiss both the two revision petitions and the appeal. K. M. A. Petitions and appeal dismissed.