Find a Lawyer

---S. 164--Livestock Breeding Scheme, Policy Instructions No. 2525-B6/ 1530-CV, dated 30-4-1983--"Successor-in-interest"--Right to Lambardari grants--Such successor, held, would mean a person who succeeds to Lambardari office whether as legal heir or otherwise--Allotment of land resumed under Lambardari grant to successor-in-interest of Lambardar would not be fresh allotment--Board of Revenue in exercise of revisional jurisdiction ordered allotment of such resumed land to successor Lambardar so long as such person holds office of Lambardar and fulfils conditions of grant.

Ch. Qamar-ud-Din Khan Meo for Petitioner.

This is a revision petition against the order of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Bahawalpur, dated 14-1-1986, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner in limine against the order of D . C . /Collector, Bahawalnagar, dated 30-11-1985. The latter had rejected the application of the petitioner for allotment of 100 Kanals of land situated in Chak No. 81/I .L. , Tehsil Haroonabad under Livestock Breeding Scheme.

2. Facts of the case are that Muhammad Siddique Lambardar of Chak No. 81/I.L. was allotted 100 Kanals of land under Livestock Breeding Scheme. He was convicted to life imprisonment in a murder case, and was consequently dismissed from the office and the petitioner appointed in his place. The petitioner thereafter applied for the allotment of the land under Livestock Breeding Scheme as successor to the previous Lambardar. The D. C. /Collector rejected the application holding that according to the policy letter, dated 31.-3-1.972, no fresh allotments of land resumed under Lambardari grant could be made. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner who rejected it, hence this revision petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. He contended that the application of the petitioner was not for fresh allotment but it was for the transfer of rights which vested in Muhammad Siddique the dismissed Lambarder and to whom the petitioner was a successor. It was urged that the instructions referred to by the D. C./ Collector were not applicable on the petitioner.

4. I have considered the arguments and peruseo the record of the case. According to Policy Instructions No. 2525-86/1530-CV, dated 30-4-1983, "successor-in-interest" as far as Lambardari grants under the defunct Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme are concerned would mean a person who succeeds to the Labardari office whether as a legal heir or otherwise. The case of the petitioner should have been considered under these instructions. I would not, therefore, consider this as a fresh allotment. The petition is accepted. The petitioner should be granted the impugned allotment and would hold it so long as he is the Lambardar and fulfills other conditions of the grant.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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