P L D (Rev (PLP)

AKHTER HUSSAIN, F. C.‑This is a petition for the revision of the order of the Commissioner, Multan division, by which he rejected the appeal of Ata Muhammad, petitioner and upheld the order of the Collector, Multan, appointing Talib Hussain as lambardar of Chak No.112/10‑R, Tehsil Khanewal, district Multan. The facts are that Fazal Ahmad, the previous lambardar of the Chak was dismissed as he had sold his land and had left the Chak. Both the parties agree that this is a case in which appointment is to be made under rule 17 (iii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. The principle laid down in rule 15 (ibid) would therefore apply. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel of the parties at great length. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel of the petitioner, Ata Muhammad, that in this case both the Col lector and the Commissioner have made a mistake in not appreciating the provisions of Rule 15 of the Land Revenue Rules, and of the law as enunciated by the Financial Com missioners in their various rulings. The first objection taken is that the respondent, Talib Hussain, is not residing in the Chak and a non‑resident cannot be appointed as a lambardar. Talib Hussain is running a commission shop in Mandi Jahanian, which is at a distance of about four furlongs from Chak No, 112/10‑R. This point was considered by the Commissioner also but he relying on 2 P R 1903 (Rev.), ruled out the objection as not to be of any vital importance. In the above mentioned ruling a distance of half a mile was not considered such a disqualification as would debar a person from being appointed as lambardar in the neighbouring village. This ruling related to a case where the lambardari was claimed under the rule of primogeniture, while in the present case the selection is to be of the best suitable person. It is true that Ata Muhammad petitioner, has also a commission shop at Jahanian, but he has his permanent residence in the Chak. He had been working as sarbarah of the previous lambardars for a long period. The claims of both the candidates under the various clauses of rule 15 of the Land Revenue Rules, are discussed below :‑ (a) None of the parties can claim preference under this clause as they have not got any collateral relationship with the previous lambardar. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, drawn my attention to my ruling reported as 1949 P L D page 10 and has stated that Ata Muhammad, petitioner, is related to Fazal Muhammad, the previous lambardar, being his aunt's son. I am afraid this relationship does not come in, the purview of hereditary or collateral rela tionship. The term 'relationship' used in my above mentioned ruling should be taken to mean collateral relationship since the word 'hereditary' used in clause (a) of rule 15 refers to claims which can only be based on collateral relationship and not otherwise. (b) As regards the extent of, property owned by the parties, the Commissioner has found that property owned by the candidates is almost equal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has shown me a copy of Mutation No. 109 sanc tioned on 3rd November 1951, by which Talib Hussain has transferred half of his landed property, i.e. 105 kanals 7 marlas out of his total holding of 310 kanals and 10 marlas in favour of his brother Nazar Hussain. This transfer was made after the decision of the appeal of this lambardari case by the Commissioner on 15th September 1951. The learned counsel for the respondent has also shown me a copy of the jama bandi containing a note by the patwari that Nazar Hussain has retransferred his above area to Talib Hussain. This step was probably taken to meet out the objection taken up in the ground of revision by the petitioner. It is therefore, very much doubtful that Talib Hussain would in fact be owning lend more than 105 kanals `and 3 marlas as against 362 kanals and 16 marlas of land by the petitioner, which is more than double of that of the respondent. This shows that in respect of property the petitioner has a better claim than the respondent. (c) So far as the services rendered by the parties are concerned, the respondent has done nothing except giving some donations at the time of the Hon'ble Minister and the local officers to Jahanian. The petitioner, on the other hand, has secured good many certificates for helping the Police and other beneficent departments and also for promoting rural uplift. These certificates show that the services rendered by the petitioner were of more substantial nature and were decidedly for too superior than that of the respondent. (d) As for the personal influence, character, and ability etc., is concerned, the petitioner being in closer touch with the masses in his capacity as sarbarah lambardar, which post he held for a long period, must have an advantage over a newcomer, (e) The only consideration which weighs in favour of the respondent is that he belongs to the Jat community of which there are 17 families in the Chak, while the petitioner, who is Pathan, is the solitary family in the Chak, I think an out sider Jat has as little influence with members of his tribe as any other outsider, and this consideration has no force, and this is the reason why, the word 'community' has been used in the rules and not tribe. I would not normally interfere with the concurrent decision of the Collector and the Commissioner in a lambardari case, but from the facts as stated above I feel constrained to hold that the Collector and tire Commissioner have both arrived at the conclusions they did on wrong premises and considerations, with the result that a suitable type of lambar dar has not been selected. I, therefore, consider it a fit case for interference on the revision side. For the reasons stated above, I accept the revision petition of Ata Muhammad, petitioner, and direct that he should be appointed as lambardar in place of Talib Hussain, respondent, whose appointment is hereby set aside. Announced. A. H.