Find a Lawyer

Revision Petition No. 20 of 1954‑55, decided on 10^th February 1956, from the order of Commissioner Multan, dated 16th August 1955.

S. 28 Non‑resident candidate owning no property in village‑Can be ignored.

S.28-- Appointment of Lambardar ‑Candidates given opportunity to put their claims before Collector‑Mistake in procedure does not matter. '

Kh. Abdur Rahim for Appellant.

Karam Elahi Chohan for Respondents.

The Collector Multan District appointed Khushi Muhammad appellant as Lambardar of Mandi Mian Channu on 16th May 1955. Muhammad Shafi respondent and three other persons appealed to the Commissioner who, vide his order dated 16th August 1955 accepted the appeals and remanded the case to the Collector for a fresh decision. The reasons which prompted him to pass this order was that the Collector had mixed up the question of the Lambar dari grant of square and appointment of the Lambardar. The Collector's predecessor had allowed acquisition of proprietary rights to Muhammad Shafi and his brother Muhammad Iqbal sons of the deceased Lambardar in the Lambardari grant thus holding the Lambardari to be hereditary in character and the Commissioner thought that it was when reviewing the order of his predecessor with the approval of the Commis sioner in respect of the Lambardari grant that the Collector took up the case of appointment of a Lambardar. The Com missioner considered that the predecessor adopted was improper and the Collector should have decided the question of lambardari grant which depended on whether the Lambardari was hereditary or not. The matter regarding the Lambardari has already been decided in my order in revision No. 66 of 1954‑55 decided on 9th February 1956. In my opinion Government could not have intended that Lambar dars of colony and Mandi towns be allowed to acquire proprietary rights in their Lambardari grants so that the question of declaring these Lambardaris hereditary for this specific purpose is no longer relevant to the issue. Khushi Muhammad has come up in appeal against the Commissioner's order of remand.

The main point urged is that the Collector had decided the two questions separately vide two orders dated 16th May 1955 and 30th June 1955. It is, however, evident that when deciding the question of Lambardari grant on 30th June 1955, the Collector did not proceed to write a detailed order and made it almost a corollary of the Lambardari case. Anyhow the learned Commissioner had not intervened in the Lambar dari case on merits but merely on a question of procedure. On going through the record of the case I would be reluctant to disagree with the findings of the Collector that on merits Khushi Muhammad appellant's claims are somewhat better than those of the other candidates. It was also found that Muhammad Iqbal the other real contestant did not reside in the Mandi but in the adjoining estate. He also does not own any property within the Mandi area.' As regards the question of procedure the case was argued before the Collector and the various contestants got an opportunity to put up their claims. I would accordingly accept the appeal and uphold the order of the Collector appointing Khushi Muhammad lambardar of the estate.

K. M. A. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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