P L D 1959 (W (PLP)

Sh. Iftikhar Ahmad for Nizam Din. Fazal Elahi Jafri for Respondent. Nizam Din Dogar was appointed as a Lambardar, but on appeal this order was set aside by the .Commissioner, who appointed Fateh Muhammad Gujjar. Petitioner Barkat Ullah is also a Gujjar. The Gujjars predominate in this Patti but the Dogras hold more land. The respondents holds only 21 Kanals and 7 Kanals of land. The value of this land was originally calculated at Rs. 727 per acre. Two mutations were produced before the Commissioner in which the value of the property transferred was given as Rs. 2,000 per acre. Both these mutations are in favour of Ilam Din, who was a candidate for Lambardari Khasra Girdawaris of years subsequent to the attestation to these mutations show that the land continued to be in the possession of the transferor. This makes the transactions suspicious and adds force to the contention that they were colourable transactions intended to boost up the value of the property of Ilam Din. It appears that for this reason the commissioner observed that the value of the property will be nearer to Rs. 1,

500. Even at this rate, which is not based on an inspection of the holding of Fateh Muhammad, the value of his property comes to roughly Rs. 4,000, which is less than half the Government demand for the Patti. The Commissioner, never theless, took the view that the respondent should be appointed and security taken from him. He relied on P L D 1956 (Rev.) 74 in which it was held that if the holding of a candidate with hereditary claim is small, he should be preferred and security taken from him for the payment of Government demand. This ruling was overruled by the Full Bench of the Board of Revenue by the ruling reported at pages 103‑106 of P L D 1958 (Rev.). That being so the ground on which the Commissioner has appointed the respondent falls through. The petitioner was selected neither by the Collector nor by the Commissioner. He holds 11 acres of land, the value of which at the rate originally calculated comes to Rs. 7,097, which is also inadequate as security for the Government demand. That being so, there is no reason why he should be appointed in preference to the choice of the Collector. Nizam Din Dogar holds 38 acres of land valued at Rs. 27,626 and was recommended by all the Revenue Officers. In view of the fact that he holds adequate property and the holding of Dogars is also more than that of the Gujjars, the order of the Collector appointing him as Lambardar could, not be called preverse or unreasonable. It is a well established convention that it is only on these grounds that the order of the Collector should be interfered with in Lambardari cases. The Commissioner has nowhere stated that he regarded the order of the Collector unreasonable. He set aside that order on the ground mentioned above. The result is that the petition of Barkat Ullah Gujjar is rejected, while in the exercise of my revisional powers the order of the Collector appointing Nizam Din Dogar as a Lambardar is restored. A. H. Order accordingly.