P L D 1959 W (PLP)

These cases may be taken up together, as they relate to the same order dated 9‑9‑57, passed by the Commissioner, Multan Division. The Commissioner set aside the Collector's order appointing appellant Fazal Din as a Lambardar and appointed the respondent (Nasir Ahmad) in his place. The Commissioner appears to have proceeded on the assump tion that the respondent got a hereditary claim because his father was a Lambardar and his elder brother surrendered it in his favour. Muhammad Iqbal relinquished his claim after the Collector's order and so it cannot help the respondent according to P L D 19589 W. P. (Rev.) 45 and P L D 1958 W. P. (Rev.)

98. The respondent has only about 37 kanals of land valued at Rs. 5,165 against the Zar‑i‑Bharat of Rs. 13,

821. In view of the fact that other suitable candidates are available, I do not see why the respondent should be appointed as Lambardar. Muhammad Iqbal has a hereditary claim, but held only 5 kanals of land at the time of the Collector's order. This pro perty is totally inadequate to be security for the Government demand. His purchase of 34 kanals and 18 marlas of land after B the Collector's order, does not help him in view of the rulings cited above. Under these circumstances, there is no adequate ground why he should be appointed. The Jats, Arains and Rajputs hold First, Second and Third positions respectively in this village. Fazal Din is a Arain holds 208 kanals and 5 marlas of land was recommended by the Tahsildar. According to certified copies of certain judgments filed at an earlier stage in this case, he was fined Rs. 30 while his son was fined Rs. 35 and Rs

25. It would have been better for the party concerned to file these papers at an earlier stage, but these convic tions have not been denied. If Fazal Din contended that he was not convicted or that he was subsequently acquitted on appeal, it was open to him to obtain an adjournment for filing necessary papers. This he has not done. Under these circumstances there was no reasonable ground for appointing him as Lambardar and his appointment was rightly set aside by the Commissioner. Petitioner Murad Khan holds 114 kanals and 12 marlas of land valued at Rs. 13,481, has a hereditary claim, and was recom mended by the Revenue Assistant. He is a Rajput but under the D circumstances of the case the mere fact that Arains are more numerous than the Rajputs should not be a bar to his appointment; particularly because no Jat candidate is in the field. It would thus appear that Murad Khan is the most suitable candidate for appoint ment as a Lambardar The result is that the petition of Murad Khan is allowed and he is appointed as a Lambardar of Chak No. 94/R.B. The petition of Muhammad Iqbal and the appeal of Fazal Din are dismissed. K. M. A. Order accordingly.