P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)

1918 L L T 9 ref. (b) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. 13‑Com missioner reversing decision of collector as perverse unreason able and based on wrong assumptions‑No interference in second appeal. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Appellant. Raja Hasan Akhtar for Respondent, The appellant Fazal Elahi who is a retired havaldar was appointed Lambardar of village Gajju Hatta, district Multan by the Collector. Muhammad Ishaq, respondent, who was one of the contestants for the post went upto the Commissioner who accepted his appeal, set aside the order of the Collector and appointed him (Muhammad Ishaq) Lambardar instead. In a somewhat detailed order the Commissioner assessed the merits of the two candidates in the light of rule 15 of the Land Revenue Rules came to the conclusion that the Collector's choice could not be considered reasonable. Fazal Elahi has come up in second appeal under section 13 of the Land Revenue Act. The Collector when appointing Fazal Elahi seems to have been influenced amongst others by three facts. An allegation was made that the rival claimant was a defaulting temporary Lambardar. According to the Commissioner this should not have been given much weight as most of the amounts due were on account of evacuee rents and rehabilitation fees, the efficient collection of which is almost impossibility. The Collector was also influenced by a Police report made against the respondent in 1943. This is definitely an old report and should have been dis regarded even if correct. In this particular case, however, the respondent had protested that Muhammad Ishaq concerned was another person though with the same parentage and belonging to the same village but the Collector disregarded his protest. The third point was that the respondent was already a hereditary Lambardar in Sheikhupura district and could not be expected to perform the duties of another Lambardari in Multan district a considerable distance away. He completely forgot that the respondent had resigned from the Lambardari in Sheikhupura district. I, therefore, find myself in agreement with the Commis sioner that the Deputy Commissioner decided against the respondent on grounds which did not exist in fact. Second appeals under section 13 of the Land Revenue Act are tenable only on grounds of law and the learned counsel for the respondent citing the case of Ma3hir Ali v. Chiragh Khan, decided by Mr. Mynard, Financial Commissioner on 19‑2‑1 918 and reported at page 9 of L L T 1918 has tried to prove that the Commissioner erred in setting aside the order of the Collector, I am afraid the contention is not of much force as the Collector's decision was based on wrong assumptions, and is thus unreason able and perverse. In any case there is no legal issue for me to interfere under section 13 of the Land Revenue Act. I will accordingly uphold the decision of the Commissioner and reject this petition. K. M. A. Petition rejected.