1990 PLP 1983 (CLC)

Precisely stated the facts of the case are that Ghulam Mustafa of Chak No. 65/DB, Tehsil Yazman, District Bahawalpur died in the year 1987 and the office of Lambardar fell vacant. The Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Yazman, after completing necessary formalities, appointed Muhammad Ismail as Lambardar of the Chak vide his order dated 6‑5‑1987 inter alia on the ground that he was the cousin of the deceased Lambardar. Ghulam Farid, petitioner and one Habib Ullah, unsuccessful contestants for the office challenged the order of the Collector before the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division on the plea that before filling in the vacancy, due proclamation was not made in the Chak. The Commissioner vide his order dated 1‑10‑1987 remanded the case to the District Collector, Bahawalpur for fresh decision. In his turn, the District Collector vide his order dated 30‑8‑1988 appointed Ahmed Din, respondent as new Lambardar of the Chak. The petitioner assailed the said order before the Commissioner who upheld the same on 30‑3‑1989.

2. Hence this revision petition.

3. I have heard the parties. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner maintained that Ahmad Din, respondent was not suitable for the Office of Lambardar on account of his involvement in a criminal case. He also contended that although the respondent was acquitted in that case but the Courts below did not take into account this aspect of the case. According to the Learned Counsel, the petitioner was better qualified as he had been recommended by the Revenue Officers and was an owner of land measuring 12‑1/2 acres which was quite sufficient to meet the requirements of the Government demand. The Counsel for the petitioner also stated that the respondent had obtained allotment on the basis of false affidavit and a complaint to that effect was pending adjudication before the Board of Revenue but it escaped the notice of both the Courts below. In nutshell the Counsel for the petitioner attempted to make out that the respondent was not eligible for the office of Lambardar of Chak No.65/DB, Tehsil Yazman.

4. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the petitioner did not take the plea with regard to complaint against his client either before the Collector or the Commissioner and obviously it was an after thought which should not be taken into consideration at revisional stage. He also contended that the respondent was on a better footing as he had more landed property than the petitioner. He also pressed into service the fact that the respondent was the choice of the District Collector who was the best judge being the administrative Head of the area. It was also the plea of the Counsel for the respondent that the order of the District Collector was upheld by the Commissioner and that is why it calls for no interference.

5. I have considered the arguments of the parties and have also gone through the relevant record. It is evident from the record that both the petitioner and the respondent are Jat Gill by caste; the ownership of both of them is almost equal. Rather the respondent had an edge over the appellant as he owned one acre more land than the petitioner. As far as other qualifications are concerned there is no appreciable difference between the two. It is a well settled principle that all things being equal, the choice of the District Collector should be respected In a case where the contestants are evenly poised the choice of the Collector gains added significance and cannot be easily brushed aside when it is neither perverse nor unlawful. Here in this case the order of the District Collector does not suffer from any infirmity and has been confirmed by the Commissioner in appeal. Under the circumstances, no interference is called for in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. As far as the complaint against the respondent is concerned, law will take its own course if it is proved to be correct. In view of what has been stated above the revision petition is dismissed. A.A./357/R Revision dismissed