P (PLP)

1921 L. L. T. 5 relied on. B. Z. Kaikaus Advocate, for Appellant. Khwaja Abdul Rahim Bar‑at‑Law, for Respondent. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner. Rawalpindi, dated 2nd July 1949 whereby he set aside on appeal the order of the Collector, Shahpur, dated 5th February 1949 and appointed respondent as lumbardar in Chak No. 108/N. B.

2. Amir Singh, lambardar of the said chak died on 11th March 1947. The Collector appointed the appellant as lambardar, on the ground that among other things he had worked as lambardar of the Mona Remount Depot for 13 years, had been realising land revenue for the last 3 years and had been helping the revenue authorities considerably.

3. The respondent appealed to the Commissioner who accepted the same on the ground that the respondent was definitely superior to the appellant in two respects, namely (i) extent of property and, (ii) ability to perform the duties of lambardar, in asmuch as he was a. much younger man and far better educated, being the holder of a First' Glass Certificate, as against the appellant's being hardly literate.

4. Lengthy arguments were advanced on both sides, but the issue involved is very simple. The learned counsel for the appellant stressed the fact, that the choice of the Collector in this case should not have been disturbed by the Commissioner. He cited various authorities in support of this and 1937 L L T 11 ; 1933 L L T 34 ; 1932 L L T 1 and 1921, L L T 5, may be mentioned among them. All these authorities more or lest lay down the principle that the choice of the Collector should not ordinarily be interfered with, On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent emphasized that if the Collector was Found to have contravened any of the provisions of the Land Revenue Rules governing appointment of lambardar, his decision was always set aside. In support of this he also quoted various authorities such as 1939 L L T 56, 1940 L L T 28, 1944 L L T 7 and 1949 P L D

10. It seems to me that the ruling quoted as 1921 L L T 5 Mashir Ali v. Malik Chiragh Khan decided by Maynard, F. C. on 19th February 1918 is still good law. It was laid down therein that where an officer in appoint ing a lambardar exercises his discretion in a reasonable manner neither ignoring any portion of those matters which he ought to consider nor perversely running counter to the general sense of the rule, his decision ought to be allowed to stand, and the mere fact that an appellate or revising office takes a different view of the personal claims is not a good reason for upsetting or modifying that decision. As held by the Commissioner the appointment in the present case is to be governed by rule 17 (i) read with rule 15 of the Land Revenue Rules. Judging the Collector's order in the light of the considerations laid down in rule 15, it will become quite clear that the learned Collector ignored at least two of the important qualifications, viz., extent of property in the estate possessed by the candidate and his ability to perform the duties of lambardar. Had the learned Collector kept in view these two important consider ations he would in all probability have come to a decision different from that at which he has arrived. In both these respects the respondent has been held by the Commissioner to be superior to the appellant. In the circumstances, the learned Commissioner was right in upsetting the order of the Collector. The appeal is accordingly rejected and the Commissioner's order dated 2nd July 1949 appointing the respondent as lambardar of Chak No. 108/N. B. District Shahpur is upheld. K.M.A. Appeal dismissed.