P L D 1959 W (PLP)

This is a second appeal filed against an order dated the 16th July 1957, passed by Commissioner, Multan Division, whereby he accepted the appeal of Muhammad Bashir Khan and upset the order of the Collector, Montgomery, appointing Sher Muhammad petitioner as Lambardar in Patti Rajkumar of village 135/9L, Tahsil Montgomery. The facts of the case are that when the question of perma nently filling up the vacancy caused by the migration of the non‑Muslim Lambardar of this Patti came under consideration seven candidates applied for the post. There were some with drawals and the real contest ultimately lay between the parties and one Saleh Muhammad. Saleh Muhammad was ignored because he did not held sufficient property and was a Khokhar which was a minority community in this estate. The Collector ignored Muhammad Bashir Khan because he was not residing in the estate, and appointed Sher Muhammad as Lambardar. Muhammad Bashir Khan went in appeal which was accepted. Hence this second appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. His main contention is that Muhammad Bashir Khan is living in the Municipal limits. It has been added that the position has been further clarified by the recent notification whereby the limits of the Municipal Committee, Montgomery have been extended. I am afraid the extension of limit does not change the nature or the boundary of the estate as a whole. So far as the question of the appointment of Lambardars is concerned such extensions of Municipal limits have no effect at all as the estate remains as such even after the extension of Municipal limits. The main question for consideration is whether the learned Collector was justified in ignoring Muhammad Bashir Khan merely on the ground that he was not residing in this Chak, in spite of the fact that he even according to the learned Collector was a better candidate. It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that even if Muhammad Bashir Khan was residing within the Municipal limits his house was on the outskirts of the estate. We insist on residence of a Lambardar within the estate merely because we feel that a non‑resident Lambardar will not be able to look after the affairs of the estate and will not be available when Government officers visit the estate. If a Lambardar lives on the outskirts of a particular estate we cannot say that he would not be able to look after the affairs of the estate or will not be able to be present when Government officers visit the estate. Even the learned Collector was of the view that Muhammad Bashir Khan had a better claim but the learned Collector appears to have ignored him merely on the technical ground of non‑residence. Such a stand was not justified by the circumstances of this case and the learned Commissioner was, therefore, quite correct in reversing the order of the learned Collector. I, therefore, see no justification for any interference. The second appeal also fails and is dismissed hereby. A. H. Appeal dismissed.