P L D 1960 W (PLP)

THE STATE‑Respondent Revision Side No. 5 of 1959‑60, decided on 19th January 1960, District Montgomery. Lambardarl‑Grants‑Resumption‑Memo. No. 1133‑C dated 15‑3‑1948‑Applicable only to Lambardars appointed after IS‑3‑1948‑Lambardars, appointed before, but granted land after, IS‑3‑1948 not covered by Memo Chiragh Din v. The State P L D 1959 W. P. (Rev.) 178 ref.J This is a revision petition against the order of Additional Commissioner, Multan dated 17‑8‑1959, by which he, rejected the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Collector resum ing his Lambardari half square on 5‑8‑1957. The order of resumption was passed on the basis of Govern ment instructions contained in memorandum No. 1135‑C, dated 15‑3‑1948 read with memorandum No. 3206‑C dated 18‑8‑1950. In the former memorandum Government laid down that "Lambar dari grants should not be granted now to the Lambardars temporary or permanent who may be appointed subsequent to this order ". In other words this memorandum required that no further grant should be made to Lambardars appointed after the 15th March 1948. It appears that this order was not carefully complied with by the Deputy Commissioners and, therefore, a further order was issued dated the 18th August 1950, which, referring to the memorandum dated the 1 5th March 1948, required that all grants made in contraventions of instructions should be resumed. Some of the Deputy Commissioners do not seem to have clearly understood the implications of either of the first or the second memorandum. For example, in this case the Deputy Commissioner evidently thought that the order dated the 18th August 1950 required the Lambardari grants to be resumed in all cases whether the Lambardar had been appointed before or after the 15th March 1948. Again the learned Commissioner in this case interpreted the memorandum dated the 15th March 1948, to mean that he was to cancel the grants the possession of which had not been given to the Lambardars before the 15th March 1948. There was no justification for either interpretation. The terms of the first memorandum are absolutely clear that the bar imposed by it only applied to those Lambardars who had been appointed after the 15th March 1948, and not to the Lambardars appointed before this date. In this case the peti tioner was not only appointed Lambardar on 13‑3‑1948, but the half square was also granted to him on the same date. In other words the memorandum dated the 15th March 1948, or the subsequent clarification dated 18‑8‑1950 did not apply to his case and his Lambardari square was wrongly resumed Chiragh Din v. The State ((1) P L D 1959 W. P. (Rev.)) 178 fully applies to this case and the petition is accepted and the half Lambardari square resumed is restored to the petitioner. A. H. Petition accepted.