P L D 1957 W (PLP)

This is a petition against an order of the Commis sioner Multan Division, dated 12th July 1955 by which he accepted the appeal of Muhammad Alam, respondent from the order of the Collector, Nili Bar Colony Pakpattan, dated 25th December 1954 and appointed him a Lambardar in place of the petitioner. I have heard Khawaja Abdur Rahim for the petitioner and Shahzada Feroze‑ud‑Din for the respondent. The Lambardari belongs to Chak No. 171/E. B. Nili Bar Colony Pakpattan and occurred owing to the migration of non Muslim Lambardar. Rahim Bakhsh, petitioner was appointed a Lambardar by the Collector on the ground that large number of Arain refugees, who constituted the predominant tribe in this village came from Jullundur District to which Rahim Bakhsh belongs. It was also found that he had been allotted a larger area than other Arains of Jullundur i.e., 121 acres. The learned Commissioner, however, correctly took the view that there was no authority for giving weight to the districts of origin of settlers. In view of this consideration as well as the fact that Muhammad Alain was found by the Commissioner to hold more land than Rahim Bakhsh and because of his better personal record of service to the administration, his appeal was accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before me that in fact the learned Commissioner has erred in his finding that Muhammad Alam owns more land than Rahim Bakhsh. The total holding of Muhammad Alam in this chak is eleven acres as against 121 acres held by Rahim Bakhsh. It is true that Muhammad Alam owns about two hundred kanals of land in Chak No. 165/E. B. It has, however, been held that it is the holding of a Lambardar candidate in the village to which the Lambardari post belongs that should weigh and not his total landed property elsewhere. It is significant that Muhammad Alam is still an occupancy tenant under section 8 of the Tenancy Act in respect of the land held by him in Chak No. 165/E. B., and according to the terms of the tenancy it is necessary that he must reside in that Chak. Documentary evidence has also been produced before me to show that as recently as 1st March 1955, in submitting his nomination papers for District Board elections Muhammad Alam gave his residential address as Chak No. 165/E. B. He also appears to have been living in Chak No. 165/E. B. For many years before partition and it is indeed doubtful if he can be regarded as a genuine refugee. I am of the view that the Collector's choice in this case was exercised in a reasonable manner and there is no sufficient justification for upsetting it In the circumstances Rahim Bakhsh's petition is accepted. K.M.A. Petition accepted.