Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 379 of 196061, decided on 16th November 1961, District Multan.

‑Appointment‑Criminal proceedings under Ss. 419, 468/109, P. P. C. pending against candidate appointed by Collector‑Appointee subsequently convicted‑Objection taken in Revision by rival candidate‑Upheld‑Not necessary to institute dismissal proceedings against appointee under r. 16, Punjab Land Revenue Rules‑Appeal and Revision continuation of original proceedings‑Conviction involving moral turpitude‑Conviction of rival candidate under S. 452/147 P. P. C. also a disqualification‑Case remanded for inviting fresh applications.

‑ Appointment ‑ Non‑Muslim vacancy ‑Muhajir community and locals in almost equal numbers‑Other Lambardari with local‑Appointment of another local not approved‑" Community " not synonymous with " tribe ".

This case relates to the Lambardari of Chak No. 139/10‑R, District Multan. The vacancy bad occurred after the migration of non‑Muslims to India. The Commissioner preferred Ghulam Sarwar respondent for the reason that the rival contestant Chiragh Din petitioner had been convicted under section 452/147 P. P. C. and fined Rs. 60. The High Court had upheld the conviction though the fine had been reduced to Rs. 40. The learned Commissioner maintained the appointment of Ghulam Sarwar and Chiragh Din has come up in revision.

Three points have been taken up before me. Firstly, that the respondent Ghulam Sarwar himself has recently been con Acted for a more serious offence under section 419/468 read with section 109, P. P. C. to a total fine of Rs. 5,000 on 16th Septem ber. This criminal case admittedly had been initiated more than two years ago i.e., while the proceedings for the appointment of a Lambardar, were in progress. Secondly, that it would be incorrect to hold, as the learned Commissioner has done, that the word " community " is synonymous with the word " tribe ". It would be more appropriate if the Muhajirs and the locals are held to be two separate communities and the appointment of a Muhajir made as they are almost equal in number to the locals. This argument is fortified further by the fact that there is already a local Lambardar belonging to the Jat community to which the respondent belongs and this Lambardar is a first cousin of the respondent himself. It is argued that it would be inappropriate and inadvisable that both the Lambardaris in the estate should be held by one family. All these arguments have considerable force particularly the one relating to the conviction of the respondent for an offence involving moral turpitude during the course of the Lambardari proceedings. The learned counsel for the respondent had tried to argue that the appointment of the respondent should be maintained unless the conditions laid down in Land Revenue Rule 16 for the dismissal of a Lambardar are satisfied. This is an erroneous view of the position as appeal and revision are a continuation of the proceedings which cannot be considered to have concluded at any earlier stage. In any case under Land Revenue Rules, rule 16 (ii) the criminal proceedings resulting In the conviction of the respondent clearly show that he is unfit to be entrusted with the duties of a Lambardar. I would accord ingly accept the revision petition to the extent of setting aside the appointment of the respondent. I would further direct that the Collector shall call for fresh applications and make a new appoint ment, as the petitioner also on account of his conviction is unfit to be trusted with the duties of a Lambardar.

A. H.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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