P L D 1961 W (PLP)

Appellate Side No. 29 of 1960‑61, decided on 22nd June 1 61, District Sialkot. (a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Dogars of Gurdaspur and Hoshiarpur Districts‑Occupying area on both sides of river Bias forming boundary between two districts‑Dogars on both sides of river having social relationships and Intermarrying‑Dogars of two districts not treated as two separate communities. (b) Lambardar‑‑Appointment ‑Age not an important factor as against experience and understanding of social and human relationships The Collector, Sialkot district, appointed Fazal Din as Lambardar of Piro Chak, Tehsil Daska. The Collector seems to have been influenced by the fact that Fazal Din owned 13 acres of land and was the biggest of all the candidates. Besides there was nothing which militated against his appointment. The learned Additional Commissioner intervened in favour of Bashir Ahmed, respondent who owns only three acres of land in' this estate. Bashir Ahmad had claimed that his father was a Lambardar in India before Independence though there is no evidence to this effect on record of the case except mere assertion by the candidate himself. The learned Addition Commissioner, however, seems to have accepted this assertion. He also seems to have been influenced by the fact that the large majority of Dogars who migrated to this village belonged to district Gurdaspur and Bashir Ahmad belonged to this district whereas the appellant Fazal Din was a Dogar of Hoshiarpur district. Thirdly the learned Additional Commissioner has remarked that BashiryAhmad is a smart young man and presumably for that reason also preferable to his rival. These three factors influenced him in accepting the appeal and in appointing Bashir Ahmad as Lambardat. Fazal Din has come up .in second appeal. The learned Additional Commissioner as would be obvious from the above narrations has erred in accepting Bashir Ahmad's assertion that his father was a Lambardar. Secondly, he has also been unduly influenced by the fact that he was a Dogar of Gurdaspur district. As a matter of fact the Dogar tribe to which both the contestants belong occupied the area on both sides of the river Bias which in that region formed the boundary between the two districts. Not only that, but it was admitted before me that Dogars on both the sides of the river had social relationships and also intermarried. The learned Additional Commissioner should not thus have treated the Dogars of the two districts as two separate communities. I would also not accept the view that a smart young man is more capable and better equipped to discharge the duties of a Lambardar. Lambardari is not an athletic contest so that age should be the important factor in favour of a candidate. The post requires that understanding which does not some without experience of social and human relationships. I would for the reasons given above, accept this appeal, set aside the order of the learned Commissioner and restore that of the Collector. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.