Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 402 of 1962‑63, decided on 27th February 1964, District Bahawalpur.

------

----‑Appointment‑Not in nature of civil right but an administrative appointment of an agent to Govern ment‑Appointment of one person cannot be considered as an infringement of civil right of another person‑Post more or less 4 a gift or bounty of Government created under Punjab Land Revenue Act‑Appointment does not amount to recognition of a civil right -Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. 28.

-----

----‑Appointment‑Chak comprising small area (29 rectangles) inhabited by Arain and Jat tribes almost balanced Collector appointing Arain candidate as Lambardar‑Commissioner (on appeal by rival Jat candidate) in order to end tribal strife, creating additional post and appointing Jat candidate thereto --Decision of Commissioner based on peculiar local conditions, held, sound.

This case relates to the Lambardari of Chak No. 53/DB, district Bahawalpur. It is a small chak comprising an area of 29 rectangles, and is inhabited by Arains and Jats who are almost balanced with the Jats holding definitely a larger area. The Collector appointed Ghulam Rasool respondent who is an Arain to the post. Wali Muhammad a rival claimant belonging to the Jat tribe filed an appeal to the learned commissioner, who after going into the past history of litigation between the parties who belong to the two opposing tribes of Arains and Jats decided to end this strife by creating an additional Lambardari and appointed Wali Muhammad to it. Thus both the tribes have now got a Lambardari each. Wali Muhammad has nevertheless come up in revision against the appointment of Ghulam Rasool.

The main plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the chak is definitely small in area and there is no justifica tion for creating an additional post even for the purpose of settling for good this tribal dispute. New Lambardari post is no in the nature of a right in the sense that this word is used in civil law but it is an administrative appointment of more or less of an agent to Government. Thus an appointment of one person cannot be considered‑as an infringment of the civil rights of an other person. If the action taken by the learned Commissioner had amounted to trespass over the rights of an individual the plea advanced by the learned counsel would have great strength and force. But the post is more or less in the nature of a gift or bounty of Government having been created by it under the Land Revenue Act. It does not amount to a recognition of an out and out civil right. Apparently the learned Commissioner thought that the only way of settling the local tribal dispute as the appointment of a Lambardar from both the tribes otherwise his considered view was that the strife would continues and endanger the public safety, not only of the chak but of its neighbourhood. In the circumstances the decision of Commissioner is sound and is based on the peculiar local conditions. I would, accordingly maintain it and dismiss the revision petition.

S. Q. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.