1992 PLP 599 (CLC)

One Sharif Ahmad, Lambardar of village 7/1‑L, Tehsil and District Okara, became landless and the Lambardari of his Patti was declared vacant. Fresh applications were invited to fill up the resultant vacancy. Sixty persons applied for the post. Forty applicants withdrew their applications leaving 20 contesting candidates. The Assistant Commissioner/Collector vide his order dated 29‑3‑1986 appointed the petitioner on trial basis for two years. That order was challenged in appeal by the respondents before the Additional Commissioner who vide his order dated 3‑2‑1987 remanded the case for fresh decision on the ground that provisions of Rule 17 of Land Revenue Rules, 1968, were not adhered to. On remand, the District Collector vide his order dated 29‑2‑1988 appointed Abdul Razzaq, respondent No.1, as Lambardar of the Chak. That order was assailed in appeals before the Commissioner by the petitioner and respondent No.3 but to no avail. Hence this revision petition under section 164 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had worked as temporary Lambardar for about two years, but the District Collector had instead appointed respondent Abdul Razzaq as a Lambardar. The respondent belonged to Rajput community and there was already a Lambardar from that community working in the revenue estate. Abdul Razzaq who had been passed over once for this post, was ineligible for appointment as Lambardar. As held in PLD 1957 Rev. 34 two persons from the same family should not be appointed as Lambardars in the same Chak. It was prayed that the impugned order may be set aside.

3. The revision was originally preferred against three respondents, but two were subsequently deleted by the learned counsel for the petitioner leaving Abdul Razzaq as contesting respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent maintained in rebuttal that no revision petition can be directed against the concurrent findings of the District Collector and the Commissioner in Lambardari cases. The appointment of the respondent had been made under Rule 17 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968, and all the relevant factors were taken into consideration by both the Courts below. There was no irregularity in the impugned orders. The number of Rajput family in the village was 360 as against 64 of Telis and hence the Rajput community was predominant and there was no bar to the appointment of a second Lambardar from that community because of its predominance. The services rendered by the answering respondent had also been taken into consideration. The respondent had been overlooked 30 years ago in view of the hereditary cLalm of another person but the present appointment was being made under Rule 17, as mentioned earlier, and hence the previous passing over was not relevant.

4. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. The ruling quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the instant case because it relates to the appointment of a Lambardar on the score of hereditary right, whereas the present matter has been dealt with under Rule 17 ibid. The moot question in this case is the petitioner's belonging to the second most numerous community in the village when there is already a Lambardar from the predominant community, This revenue estate consists mostly of Rajput community with 360 land‑owners holding 808 acres as against 60 land‑owners of the second most numerous community, Telis. Thus Rajput community is six times more numerous than Teli community. The former are so preponderant and their number is so large that a second Lambardar can also be appointed from them in view of its size and influence. The respondent appears to be personally more influential as he has been elected a Local Councillor twice. He had also worked as a temporary Lambardar and his services are duly mentioned in the Collector's order. For the purpose of appointment of a Lambardar, the communities have to be taken as a whole and should not ordinarily be divided into sub‑castes and sub‑communities unless the contest be between such sub‑castes or sub‑communities. For instance, if in the present case the contest was between Rajput Madhar and Rajput Chohan, only then the respective size or number of these sub‑communities would have been important, but for the purpose of a contest with another community, tribe or caste, both these sub‑communities or sub‑castes of Rajputs would be treated as one (Rajput) community. This observation finds support in Revenue Rulings Volume‑I, pages 345, 495 and 549, etc. In view of the foregoing, I do not have any strong reasons to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below and consequently the revision petition is dismissed. AA./400/R Revision dismissed.