1992 PLP 1624 (CLC)

Respondent No.2 in person. Additional Respondent No.4 in person. Brief facts of the case are that there are three pattis namely Alpa, Parhar and Tarar in the village Rattokala, Tehsil Bhalwal, District Sargodha since last Settlement. Haji Mahla Khan is Lambardar of Patti Tarar and the petitioner is the Lambardar of remaining two Paltis. Respondent No.2, who belongs to Parhar community, applied for the creation of post of Lambardar for his Patti on the ground of enmity between the parties. The Deputy Commissioner, recommended the additional post, made the reference to the Commissioner which was allowed vide impugned order dated 7‑2‑1988. Hence this appeal under section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant in his written arguments contended that the appellant was appointed as a Lambardar after the death of his father on 21‑9‑1968 and had been performing his duties satisfactorily. The respondent applied for creation of an additional post of Lambardar. He was helped by one Ghulam Muhammad who was an Inspector in the Anti Corruption Department and a relation of Khalid Mahmood respondent. There was a long‑standing enmity between the appellant and the family of the respondent and this aforesaid Ghulam Mohammad exercising his influence obtained favourable reports from the various Revenue Authorities for the creation of the additional post of Lambardar. Khalid Mahmood had joined service and was therefore, unfit for appointment as a Lambardar. The specific grievance of the appellant regarding the creation of additional post of Lambardar was that the appointment of another Lambardar would result in monetary loss to the appellant. The learned Commissioner had not attended to various aspects of the case and the matter decided by the Member, Board of Revenue Punjab, in 1970 could not be reopened. There were already 2 Lambardars in the village and there was no need for further Lambardars.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent in his written arguments maintained that there were three Pattis in this revenue estate since the last Settlement. Saeed Muhammad appellant had been working as Lambardar of two Pattis, whereas one Haji Mahla Khan was the Lambardar of the third Patti. Patti Alpa is owned by 549 land owners and Patti Parhar by 965 land owners. There were murder cases between the appellant and the land owners of Patti Ala, therefore, the land owners of Patti Alpa moved the Deputy Commissioner/Collector for appointment of a separate Lambardar. This prayer was supported by the revenue field staff and the Assistant Commissioner concerned. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector also heard the parties and forwarded the reference to the Commissioner for creation of a post of Lambardari for Patti Alpa. This was allowed by the Commissioner after hearing the parties. The Commissioner had rightly restored the Lambardari of Alpa Patti, and that order was according to law and therefore, the revision petition may be dismissed.

4. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector had recommended creation of the post of Lambardari for Patti Parhar on the basis of enmity between the appellant and the community of that Patti. The learned Commissioner after hearing the parties found that "one cannot cope with the work of the two Pattis and that they have difficulties in payment of the land revenue. The people in general have also problems in matters like attestation etc, from the solitary Lambardai" and therefore he allowed the reference made by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector for creation of another post. The learned Commissioner also considered the refusal of the Member , Board of Revenue to create an additional post vide his order dated 10‑3‑1970 and noted that besides increase in the population the problems of the people had become intricate and beyond convenient management.

5. I am inclined to agree with the view taken by the Commissioner. The population during the last two decades has nearly doubled and consequently problems of the people have also increased. There is also admitted enmity between the appellant and the respondents due to murder cases and therefore, the learned Commissioner allowed the reference made by the Deputy: Commissioner/Collector on valid grounds. The Lambardari is an administrative matter and the local authorities are not only fully competent but are also required to resolve the problems faced by the people in their discretion at their level. The decision of the 1‑cal authorities, therefore, does not call for any intervention because they are the best judges' of the local conditions. No illegality or irregularity has been pointed out in the impugned order. It is not conceivable that an Inspector of Anti‑Corruption could have influenced the decision of the Commissioner in this matter.

6. As regards the point taken by the appellant that creation of an additional post would lead to decrease in his income as a Lambardar, it may be observed that administrative convenience takes priority over income of the Lambardars. A Lambardar is paid certain fees for the services rendered by him but these services must be promptly and freely available to the public. It has been held by the authorities below that one Lambardar was not sufficient for two Pattis and the people were facing difficulties on this score. Therefore, they have not committed any error of judgment by creation of an additional post of Lambardar in order to attend to the public problem quickly and efficiently. The fee of the Lambardar is not a vested right like salary of a Government servant which cannot be reduced; the lambardar's fee has to be proportionate to the revenue collected by him. In any case, the rate of Panchotra has been doubled by the Board of Revenue to 10% and therefore the appellant is not likely to experience any shortfall in his income on this score.

7. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that the appeal is without merit and is accordingly dismissed. A.A./478/R Appeal dismissed.