P L D (Rev (PLP)

NASIR AHMAD, F. C.‑This case relates to the Lambar dari of Village Khangarh, district Muzaffargarh, which was formarly held by Tulsi Dass, a non‑Muslim. The appointment has to be made on a permanent basis and the Collector selected Sadiq Muhammad Khan appellant following the principles laid down in Rule 15 of the Land Revenue Rules. Aftab Ali respondent, who was left over by the Collector, appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that if the principles laid down by Government in their memorandum No. 3580‑R., dated the 18th December 1953, were to be followed strictly, Aftab Ali had a better claim. However, as the Commissioner had some doubt regarding the question of residence of Aftab Ali, he remanded the case to the Collector and directed that the question of residence should be gone into and a decision arrived at a fresh by the Collector as a review of the order of his predecessor Sadiq Muhammad Khan has now come up in revision, alleging that the remand 9f the case ordered by the Commissioner was unnecessary, as there was sufficient evidence on the question of residence to come to a definite finding. Further that the Commissioner had misinterpreted the Government memorandum under con sideration. In brief, the original choice made by the Collector should be restored. Lengthy arguments have been advanced by the parties, but the main question to be considered is whether the Govern ment memorandum referred to above does in any way interfere with the existing Land Revenue Rules. In my opinion, the memorandum does not do so and only clarifies the position regarding new appointments to fill up permanent vacancies caused by the migration of non‑Muslim Lambardars. It is quite obvious that these appointments are new appointments, made under Rule 15, and hereditary claims find a place in this Rule and have to be considered along with other factors. This is exactly what the memorandum under consideration clarifies, thus the Commissioner is not correct when he observes that a strict interpretation of this memorandum gives a preference to Aftab Ali. On the contrary, the view which the Collector has taken of this matter, is legally correct and sound. The parties have taken me through the evidence regarding the place of residence of Aftab Ali. The general practice of the Financial Commissioner has been to leave as far as possible question of fact for determination by the Courts below. In this particular case, the Collector and the Commissioner seem to have a different view about the residence of Aftab Ali and it was, therefore, correct for the learned Commissioner to remand the case on this issue. I, however, do not agree with the Commissioner that this would mean a review of the previous order passed by the Collector. I would interpret the order of the Commissioner to mean an acceptance of the appeal and a remand for a fresh decision on the merits. The obser vation made by the learned Commissioner that "in case memorandum No. 3580‑R., dated 18th December 1953, is interpreted strictly, Aftab Ali has a superior claim" should not weigh with the Collector in coming to a fresh decision. A. H. Order accordingly.