P L D 1966 W (PLP)

Raja Muhammad Muzaffar for Petitioner. Dr. Nasim Hassan for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 18th of February 1964, passed by the Commissioner, Multan Division, whereby the‑ petitioner was dismissed. The facts of the case are that originally there were four Lambardars in the village. One of them Subedar Noor Muhammad died and the question of filling in this vacancy came up for consideration. Seven persons including the parties applied for the post. Out of the existing Lambardars one was a Christian, the other was a Pathan and the third was a Jat. The deceased was a Rajput but the Rajputs had ceased to be majority community as the number of Gujars had become greater. The case was decided under rule 17.1 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules and the sons of the deceased Lambardar were ignored being absentees and on account of the fact that there had been a murder in the family. Ultimately, .the Collector selected the respondent. The petitioner as well as Muhammad Ashraf (son of the deceased Lambardar) filed appeals before the Commissioner but they were dismissed. Only Khan, petitioner has come upon revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. His contention is that Wilayat Khan is not a Jat, but a Rajput. In the first instance there is nothing on record to substantiate this assertion. In the second it is inconceivable that out of the previous four Lambardars two would be Rajputs namely, the deceased Lambardar as well as Wilayat Khan. I, therefore, see no force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The next point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the learned Commissioner was not justified is taking into consideration only the proprietary area. He has pointed out that the word used in rule 15 is `possessed' and not `owned'. He has therefore suggested that area under occupancy tenancy should have also been taken into consideration. I am afraid I cannot accept this interpretation. With a view to seeing whether the person proposed to be appointed Lambardar had sufficient land as security against Government demand, obviously the area over which a person does not have proprietary rights cannot be taken into consideration. The last point urged is that the petitioner should have been preferred because he is a Member of the Union Council. I am afraid such consideration do not have much weight when the question of appointing Lambardar is concerned. At any rate I, it could only be one of the facts to be taken in view. I find that the petitioner is admittedly a Jat. According to the record, one of the other three Lambardars is Jat and it was therefore rightly held that the vacancy should not go to a Jat again. In those circumstances, I see no justification for any interference with the concurrent findings of the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner. The revision fails and is dismissed, hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.