Find a Lawyer

R.O.R. No. 184 of 1989, decided on 18th June, 1989.

---S.36---West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957), S.8 Appointment of Lambardar Two contesting candidates being in the field, Board of Revenue examined chart pertaining to the ownership and number of families of each contesting tribe Appointed Lambardar owned individually more land than the contesting candidate Number of owners of contesting candidate"s tribe in village was 44 while the owners of appointed Lambardar"s community were 47 in number Landowners belonging to appointed Lambardar"s community were thus more than those of contesting candidates tribe Appointed Lambardar was also a young educated person while contesting candidate had a chequered record Appointed Lambardar having a spotless character, choice of Collector did not suffer from any infirmity and had been confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner No interference was thus called for in the orders of the Courts below Revision dismissed.

Saif Niaz for Petitioner.

Ali Akhar Qureshi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 18th June, 1989.

The facts giving rise to this case, briefly are that the petitioner was working as temporary lambardar of chak No. 65/ML, Tehsil Bhakkar for the last 25 years. Later on when more than 50% of the allottees of the estate had obtained proprietary rights, a case for the appointment of permanent lambardar was taken up and processed. Forty two persons applied for the post of lambardar but ultimately the present parties were left to the field. The District Collector appointed the respondent as a lambardar. The petitioner went in appeal before the Commissioner but failed through impugned order hence this petition.

2. I have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had worked for 25 years as temporary lambardar with satisfactory and unblemished record, that he was a member of majority tribe of Rajput. that the holding of the petitioner measuring 124 kanals 11 marlas was sufficient to serve as security for Zar e Bharat, that a permanent Ihata and a lambardari grant also stood allotted in the name of the petitioner, that twenty one candidates withdrew in favour of the petitioner and that the objection raised by the lower Courts that as temporary lambardar the petitioner charged Rs. 300.78 from one Abdul Majid s/o Din Muhammad while according to Dhal Bachh only Rs. 152 were chargeable wits incorrect and based on forged documents. As regard the second objection of late depositing of Government dues for Rabi 1980 by ten months, this was not denied try the petitioner. Regarding the third objection that the petitioner deposited Rs. 150 per acre as price of kind granted to him while he should have deposited Rs. 512 per acre being already an owner of the land the learned counsel stated that the petitioner was not owner of the land at chak No. 7/4-L. Okara, at the time of depositing of price at the rate of Rs. 150 per acre. He became owner of that land subsequently. It was not denied that the petitioner was on 5 7 1981 lined Rs. 500 under Ahtram e Ramzan Ordinance. The learned counsel however stressed that all such old allegations were trivial in nature and had no bearing on this case. Vic further stressed that the respondent belonged to minority community of Arains, that he had no experience of this job, that he had mortgaged his land and no land was left to serve its security for Zar e Bharat, that the land even otherwise was jointly owned by him with his two brothers and that the ownership of Arain tribe was also less than the ownership of the Rajputs. Under these circumstances the petitioner had better claim to the post of lambardar.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the respondent was a young man, was matriculate, that he owned 100 kanals of land which was quite sufficient to serve as security for the Zar e Bharat of Rs. 28,734 and that he belonged to Arain community which was a predominant community in the estate. The learned counsel further stressed that working of the petitioner as temporary lambardar wits no consideration for the appointment of permanent lambardar. The record of the petitioner was also not good as he was once convicted under the Ahtram e Ramzan Ordinance, in 1981 and wits responsible for overcharging a land owner and also temporary misappropriation of land revenue. He went on to say drat the petitioner being an old person could not perform duties of lambardar efficiently. He argued that the Collector had rightly appointed the respondent as a permanent lambardar and that order was maintained by the learned Commissioner which does not call for any interference.

4. I have considered the arguments and have examined the record of the case. Patwari Mahal who wits called had submitted a chart pertaining to the ownership and number of families of each contesting tribe. As per statement the respondent owned individually 160 kanals of land whereas the petitioner had 124 kanals 11 marlas of land. The number of owners of Rajput tribe in village was 44 while the owners of Arain community are 47 in number. Hence land owners belonging to Arain community are (sic) than those of Rajput tribe. The respondent is also a youngman and educated person. The petitioner has a chequered record while the respondent has spotless character. The choice of the Collector does not suffer from any infirmity and has been confirmed in appeal try the Commissioner. Hence no interference is called for in the orders of the Courts below. The revision petition is therefore hereby dismissed.

A.A./328/R

Find a Lawyer Near You

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