P L D 1964 W (PLP)

91 families 395 acres Arains 35 164 Jats 8 73 Rajputs 7 145 One vacancy has gone to a Mughal and another has gone to a Rajput. The Collector appointed Faqir Muhammad respon dent who is a Jat and ignored the claims of Shah Muhammad Arain on the ground that he had been bound down in 1952, to keep the peace. In appeal the learned Additional Commissioner maintained the order passed by the Collector. Shah Muhammad has now come up in revision. It is true that Shah Muhammad belongs to the majority tribe and also exercises considerable influence in the estate being an elected member of the Local Union Council. He is also a some‑what bigger landlord but the difference in area of land held by the two candidates is only one acre and for practical' purposes it can be ignored. The main reason why the petitioner was not appointed was the fact that he had been bound down under section 107/151, Cr. P. C. in 1952, for keeping the peace. In doing so the Collector and the learned Additional Commis sioner followed Mr. M. Z. Khan's ruling in Musa v. Chatar Khan (P L‑D 1959 W. P. (Rev.) 68). It has recently been laid down by a Full Bench of the Board in Abdul Shakoor v. Wali Muhammad (P L D 1963 W. P. (Rev.) 3) that when a candidate has been bound down to keep the peace under section 107, Cr. P. C. his claim for first appointment to the office of a Lambardar may be overlooked unless he establishes some mitigating circumstances. The petitioner's case is that he was bound down more than 10 years ago and this was in connection with a general dispute in the village in which almost all the landowners were involved on one side or the other. A reference to the Full Bench decision will make it clear that every case has to be considered individually on its merits and. it should not be an automatic disqualification if a person is bound down to keep) the peace. The order passed against the petitioner is more than 10 years old and the circumstances under which he was bound down have not been controverted. In the circumstances I would be reluctant to throw out the petitioner's case on this ground alone. The tribe constitution of the Chak shows that Arains are the next dominant tribe in the estate after the Mughals who are in a majority. Of the three posts of Lambardari in the Chak, one has been given to Mughals, another to Rajputs and the third to Jats the tribe to which the respondent belongs. It is apparent that the Arain community which is the second majority tribe in the Chak has been ignored, a fact which seems some what unjust and may result in ill‑feelings amongst the various village communities. It would undoubtedly be in the interest of good administration if a suitable candidate from this tribe is given the third appointment. One other point require& brief mention i.e., that a prelimi nary objection was taken that the petition is time‑barred keeping in view the practice followed by the Board of Revenue. It is true that is accordance with the rules a petitioner or an appellant is required only to attach a copy of the order which it is sought to impugn along with the grounds referred before the lower Court or the officers below. Another practice, however, for the convenience of Members of the Board of Revenue has sprung up and that is that an appellant or a petitioner is required also to attach copies of the orders passed by the original Court and the first appellate Court along with the grounds of appeal. The delay alleged in this particular case is due to the petitioner's efforts to obtain copies of the orders passed by the Revenue Officers below and therefore merits condonation. As a result of the above discussion I would set aside the) appointment of Faqir Muhammad respondent and appoint the petitioner as Lambardar instead. K. M. A. Petition accepted.