Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 15 of 1946‑47, decided on 24th April 1948, from the order of Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division.

‑Rival candidates, are being an adopted son and the others a distant relative not within degree prescribed by Rule 17 (11) (a) of Land Revenue Rules‑Latter preferred.

It is apparent that both parties to the appeal are not related to the deceased lambardar within the prescribed degree, but the rule clearly lays down that the claim of a collateral relation of the last incumbent shall not be admitted solely on the ground of inheritance. The word solely is significant. This means that while the relationship with the deceased lambardar is not the sole determining factor, it does constitute one of the considerations which should be taken into account. The respondent being a relation, however distinct, of the deceased, is clearly entitled to preferential treatment qua the appellant who can urge no such relationship.

‑Non‑resident candidate employed at Peshawar ‑Allowed six months to get release from employment and take up residence in village‑Failing which, dismissal under Rule 16, Land Revenue Rules orders.

Jamil Hussain for Appellant.

Dr. Tasaduq Hussain Khalid for Respondent.

This is an appeal from the order of the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, dated 16th January 1947. whereby he set aside the order of the Collector, Rawalpindi, dated 22nd April 1946, appointing the present appellant as lambardar in village Gorakhpur, Tahsil and District Rawalpindi.

The facts are that on the death of Jazu lambardar of Gorakh pur, Tahsil Rawalpindi, the Collector appointed the appellant who claimed to be the adopted son of the deceased lambardar as lambardar. On appeal, the Commissioner upset the order of the Collector and ap pointed the respondent on the ground that he was not only related to the deceased lambardar, though in a remote degree, but was also the better of the two candidates. Against the order of the Commissioner the nominee of Collector has now come up in appeal. The counsel for the appellant has urged that as neither the appellant nor the respondent hap pened to be related to the deceased lambardar in the degree prescribed by Rule 17 (11) (a) of the Land Revenue Rules, this should be treated as a case of two candidates absolutely stranger to the last incumbent of the office of lambardar and that it should be decided on merits in total disregard of hereditary consideration. It is apparent that both parties to the appeal are not related to the deceased lambardar within the prescribed degree, but the rule cited above does clearly lay down that the claim of a collateral relation of the last incumbent to succeed shall not be admitted solely on the ground of inheritance. The word "solely" is significant. This means that while the relationship of the respondent with the deceased lambardar is not the sole determining factor, it does constitute one of the considerations which should be taken into account in a case of this kind. The respondent being a relation, however distant, of the deceased is clearly entitled to preferen tial treatment qua the appellant who can urge no such relationship. Besides, the appellant has a positive disqualification of being a minor in the case of whose appointment a sarbarah will be required for years to come. It is not known how the boy will shape before he grows into manhood. Therefore, on grounds of heredity as well as of administrative efficiency and convenience, I feel that the learned Commissioner was right in upsetting the choice of the Collector. I find no grounds for interfering in the Commissioner's order and reject the appeal subject to the observations made hereafter.

I notice that the respondent is still employed at Peshawar and consequently has not been able to resume his office of lambardari in the village. It is most objectionable that this important office should remain unoccupied ad infinitem. I, therefore, order that the respondent must get himself released from his present employment and take up his residence in the village within six months from the date of this order. Failing that, steps should be taken to dismiss him from the post of lambardari under Rule 16 of the Land Revenue Rules.

A. H. Appeal rejected.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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