P L D 1957 W (PLP)

A. K. MALIK.‑

This is a second appeal against an order of Commissioner Multan Division, dated 14th August 1955, by which he accepted the appeal of Haji Muhammad Ali, respondent and ordered his appointment as lambardar of Chak No. 259/E. B., Tehsil Vihari. district Multan in a vacancy caused by the migration of Lal Singh, a non‑Muslim lambardar of that Chak. There were ten candidates for this post including Fazal Muhammad, appellant and Haji Muhammad Ali, respondent. The Collector in selecting Fazal Muhammad appellant was influenced by the consideration that there were a larger number of refugees from Faridkot State, who had settled in this chak than from Jullundur district to which place Haji Muhammad Ali belonged. Both Fazal Muhammad and Muhammad Ali are Arains and neither of them was a Lambardar in East Punjab. The learned Commissioner observed that of the two Lambardaris in the village one had already gone to a refugee from Faridkot State. He also noted that both in the number of families and area allotted the Arains of Jullundur had a superiority over the Arains of Faridkot. In view of these considerations and some adverse reports, which had been made against Fazal Muhammad by the local Revenue Officers regarding his work as a temporary Lambardar, the learned Commissioner set aside the order of the appointment of Fazal Muhammad and appointed Muhammad Ali as Lambardar. I have heard Mr. Latif Anwar advocate for the appellant and Kh. Abdur Rahim with Qazi Iftikhar Ahmad, advocates for the respondent. An affidavit has been filed before me on behalf of one Sikander son of Jan Muhammad a resident of this Chak, who claims to be a refugee from the same village of Faridkot State from which Fazal Muhammad hails to the effect that Fazal Muhammad was convicted under sections 366 and 376, I. P. C. in the year 1950 and was awarded four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.

200. Fazal Muhammad has repudiated this allegation and has offered to submit a counter‑affidavit denying this I would ask the Collector in view of these affidavits which have been filet before me to make a further inquiry into this matter and it any of these affidavits is found to be false to take appropriate action against the offending party. It has been asserted before me on behalf of the appellant that Muhammad Ali is not a refugee as even prior to partition with his brother he also held some land in Chak No. 261/E.B. which was being cultivated by himself. This Chak is only half a mile away from Chak No. 259 to which this Lambardari relates. The allegation made that Haji Muhammad Ali owns some land in Chak No. 261/E. B., is not denied but it has been justifiably asserted on behalf of the respondent that simply on account of this fact he does not cease to be a 'refugee' as defined under section 2 (d) of the Punjab Refugees (Registra tion of Land Claims) Act (VI of 1949). In answer to the objection that the respondent holds only about five acres of land in this Chak it as been stated by the respondent that the latter owns another 22 acres of land in Chak No. 261/E.B., and 121 acres in Bahawalpur State. I think the learned Commissioner was fully justified in not assenting to the principle followed by the Collector that the refugees from Faridkot State should be treated as a separate group. Jullundur district and Faridkot State are so closely adjacent to each other that an Arain of one district could be' regarded as capable of representing the Arains of the other district. In view of the extent of property held by the respondent in this and the neighbouring Chak No, 261, the fact that one Lambardari has already gone to Faridkot State and the adverse reports against the appellant‑the fact that the appellant was dismissed from the post of a Lambardar ill Faridkot State, has not been adequately denied the learned Commissioner was justified in accepting the respondent's appeal. I see no sufficient reasons to interfere and reject this petition. K.M.A. Petition rejected.