P L D 1957 W (PLP)

H. A. MAJID.‑‑

The present petitioner was selected by the Collector as the Lambardar of this Patti. The present respondent appealed to the Commissioner who upset the Collector's order and directed the Collector to pass a fresh order. The Collector thereupon reconsidered the matter and finally passed an order on 15th May 1956, appointing the present petitioner again as Lambardar. The present res pondent appealed for the second time to the Commissioner who substituted him for the petitioner as Lambardar on 3rd December 1956. Both parties have hereditary claims regarding a Lambar dari appointment. Both of them belong to the same tribe and their holdings in the estate are roughly similar. The parties are carrying on a controversy regarding the manner in which the present petitioner has been discharging his duties as temporary Lambardar in this estate. It is clear that he has been in arrears on different occasions. It is also correct that he has been put under arrest and that his property has been attached for the realization of the arrears. The Collector, however, considers that his performance as temporary Lambardar was satisfactory. The details which are given in the Collector's file tend to show that the arrears accumulated in respect of items like rent of evacuee property, rent for temporary cultivation and Rehabilitation fees. The Collector has obviously taken into account the fact that the recovery of such items is more difficult than that of the normal dues like land revenue, Abiana local rate etc. It appears that in the eyes of the Commissioner the mere fact that a Lambardar was in arrears on a couple of occasions debars him from seeking the permanent Lambardari in the estate. I am not in agreement with this view of the Com missioner. The performance of a temporary Lambardar can become a disqualification if he is a persistent defaulter or is dishonest. Periodical defaults due to the difficulties inherent in the work may not show ideal working but should not, in my opinion, count as a disqualification. The other ground on which the present respondent bases his claim is that the Jats emanating from his native district of Gurdaspur have settled down in this village in larger numbers than the Jats emanating from the native district of the present petitioner, viz. Hoshiarpur. I do not consider that this matter of detail should be attached unnecessary importance because the Jats from the two said Districts deserve to be treated as one entity. Altogether, I have formed the opinion that the Collector's decision was in no way perverse or opposed to the law, The interference by the Commissioner was, therefore, unjustified. I accordingly accept this petition for revision and direct that the petitioner should be restored to his Lambardari appointment. K. M. A. Revision accepted.