P L D 1957 W (PLP)

Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, Advocate for Tai Muhammad Khan Petitioner. Ch. Ghulam Ali for Ehsan Ali Petitioner. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Niaz Muhammad Khan Respondent. Amir‑ud‑Din Qidwai for Muhammad Hussain Respondent. This order will dispose of two petitions Nos. 261 and 76 of 1955‑56 against an order passed by Commissioner, Multan Division on 9th April 1956 by which he set aside the order of Collector, Montgomery, dated 20th December 1955, appointing Ehsan Ali petitioner a Lambardar in Chak No. 71/5‑L, Tahsil and District Montgomery and rejected Taj Muhammad petitioner's appeal against the same order of the Collector, appointing Muhammad Hussain Khan respondent a Lambardar in the same Chak. I have heard Mr. Ghulam Ali, Advocate for Ehsan Ali petitioner and Kh. Abdur Rahim for Niaz Muhammad Khan respondent in revision petition No. 261 of 1955‑56 and Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Advocate for Taj Muhammad alias Taj Ali petitioner in revision petition No. 76 of 1955‑

56. Mr. Amir‑ud‑Din Advocate has appeared for Muhammad Hussain Khan respondent, who has since died. There are two Patti in this Chak Ehsan Ali s petition relates to the vacancy in Patti Satwandar pal Singh. In this Patti there are 43 families of Rajputs with 284 acres 12 Syeds with 38 acres. The petitioner Ehsan Ali is a syed and besides being a previous Lambardar in two villages in Eash Punjab was also a Zaildar. He has been allotted fifteen acres of land in this Patti. He has also been acting as temporary Lambardar. Niaz Muhammad Khan who is a Rajput and represents the majority tribe has two acres of land in this Patti but eleven acres in the village taken as a whole. He too was a Lambardar in East Punjab and is also a temporary Lambardar in this village at present. The learned Collector preferred Ehsan Lai but the Commissioner found that Ehsan Ali was not living in this Chak but resided in another Chak some five miles away in fact this was admitted before the Commissioner. In my view the Commissioner rightly held that non-residence in this case was a serious disqualification and since Niaz Muhammad Khan besides having hereditary claims also represented the majority tribe he was justifiably held to be a better candidate. It has been stated before me on behalf of Ehsan Ali that if he is appointed a Lambardar he would take up his residence in this Chak. I find however that even after the was appointed a Lambardar by the Collector until the time when the matter came up in decision before the Commissioner Ehsan Ali took no steps to take up his residence in this village. I agree with the Commissioner that Ehsan Ali is not a suitable person for appointment as Lambardar in this Chak. I , therefore reject his petition. In the second Patti viz., Patti Servants of the Society Rajputs again predominate with 63 allottees holding 301 acres. There are several other tribes including Pathans with two allottees only, who held 22 acres of land. The petitioner Taj Muhammad alias Taj Ali is a Rajput, who has been allotted eight acres of land in this Patti. He had no heredi tary claims. The respondent, Muhammad Hussain Khan, who is a Pathan, was a Sarbarah Lambardar in East Punjab and also a Zaildar with a fine record of service. He was allotted two acres of land, besides 121 acres of a garden. The Collector held him to be a better candidate and appointed him to the vacancy. Allegations were made before the Commis sioner and these have been urged again before me that Muhammad Hussain respondent was living in Pakpattan and not in this Chak. The Commissioner has given good reasons for the view that it has not been established that Muhammad Hussain was a non‑resident. I see no sufficient reasons for interfering with the concurrent choice of the Collector and the Commissioner and reject Tai Muhammad's petition. K.M.A. Petition rejected.