P L D 1964 W (PLP)

(b) Lambardar

‑Appointment‑Acquisition of more land by candidate during pendency of case‑Can be taken into considera tion. Ghulam Qadir Khan v. Muhammad Aslant P L D 1957 W. P. (Rev.) 56 and Ghulam Muhammad v. Abdul Hamid P L D 1958 W. P. (Rev.) 40 fol. (c) Lambardar

‑Appointment‑Candidate holding more than two acres in Patti and elected to Union Council‑‑Preferred to person belonging to dominant tribe but holding less land and defaulter of Government dues. This case relates to the appointment of a Lambardar in village Bhamba district Lahore where a vacancy had occurred due to the migration of non‑Muslims to India. The Collector, Kasur had appointed the petitioner Jagroop, a Meo, but as the latter did not possess any land in the Patti the learned Commissioner remanded the case for a fresh appointment. On remand the Collector appointed Faiz Muhammad respondent who is a Jat. Jagroop, went in appeal but the learned Additional Commissioner upheld the appointment of Faiz Muhammad. A revision petition has now been preferred. Two main points have been taken up before me: firstly that Meos, the tribe to which the petitioner belongs, and the Jats are equal in numbers in this estate, but the former dominate in this patti to which the Lambardari relates. There are 8 Lambardaris in the estate, and if the present appointment of the respondent is upheld, five of these will go to fats, which is inequitable. In this particular patti there are 314 Meos families holding 627 acres. The Jats comprise 196 families with 318 acres of land in their possession. Obviously a Meo if otherwise suitable shout normally be appointed a Lambardar As regards the extent of land possessed by the two candidates in the patti the petitioner has acquired 3 acres through exchange after the remand order of the learned Commissioner. He has also hereditory claims, as he was a Lambardar in India before migration. It is urged on behalf of the respondent that as the petitioner had acquired land in the patti during the pendency of the Lambardari case and after the case had once been decided by the Collector this new acquisition should not be taken into consideration; further that the respondent owns 57acres against only 7 acres of the petitioner. The first part of the argument has no force, as observed by H. A. Majid, M. B. R. in Ghulam Qadir Khan v. Muhammad Aslam (P L D 1957 W. P. (Rev.) 56) and M. Z. Khan, M. B. R. in Ghulam Muhammad v. Abdul Hamid (P L D 1958 W. P. (Rev.) 40). It was further stated that the petitioner himself defaulted m payment of land revenue, so much so that he admitted in his statement before the Tehsildar on 9‑4‑1962 that Rs. 238 were due from him which he had not paid till that date. The respondent is an elected member of the Local Union Council and has been contended that he command more influence than the petitioner. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner owns a very small holding as compared to more than two squares of land in the possession of the respondent, further he is a defaulter of Government dues and although he belongs to the dominant tribe he does not exercise as much influence as the respondent who has been elected to the Local Union Council. I would be reluctant to upset the unanimous decision of the Collector and 'the Additional Commissioner. The revision petition accordingly stands dismissed. The parties should be informed. S. Q. Petition dismissed.