Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 31 of 1961‑62, decided on 21st July, 1962, District Multan.

-----

-----r. 15‑Factors for considera tion at first appointment of Lambardar.

----

----‑Collector's order reasonable-- Not to be set aside by Commissioner.

This second appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Commissioner, Multan Division and relates to the Lambardari of Chak No.117/10‑R, District Multan. The Collector had appointed the appellant Abdul Qadir but the learned Commissioner intervened in appeal and appointed Muhammad Nawaz, respondent, instead. A second appeal has been preferred against this order.

The main ground that has been urged before me is that the learned Commissioner has erred in the application of rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. This rule is admittedly not com prehensive, and lays down only the important factors which have to be taken into consideration when making the firs appointment of a lambardar. The learned Commissioner after enumerating this rule came to the conclusion that the respondent had a better claim because his father was a Lambardar in India and had been working as a temporary Lambardar in this estate till his death. Further the respondent owns more land and his family has war service to their credit. The counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Commissioner has gone wrong in making his appraisal as a number of facts accepted by him are not correct. The petitioner's father was undoubtedly a Lambardar but as is evident from the order of the Collector he had been appointed a Lambardar in another estate, village Bamb situated in the same district. It is alleged that he had later on resigned from this Lambardari but that cannot by any process of reasoning result in a revival of his hereditary claim in Chak No. 117/10‑R or in any other estate. From a copy of the order which has been produced before me by the petitioner's counsel the appeal in the Bamb Lambardari case had been rejected so that the respondent's father was to all intents and purposes a by confirmed Lambardar of that village. His resignation may mean that his son gets a hereditary clam in that village but a claim of this nature cannot be taken by him to another estate. Coming to the fact of temporary appointment: It was the respondent's father who was a temporary Lambardar ; whereas it is appellant himself who has worked as a temporary Lambardar throughout since 1947. As regards the land in the possession of the parties the appellant again is in a better position. In order to appreciate the facts clearly I would repeat here sub‑rule (b) of Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules which runs as follows :‑

"Extent of property in the estate possessed by the candi date".

It is not strictly land in ownership which has to be taken into consideration and the reason for this distinction becomes) apparent in the case of displaced persons who had not become owners of land in their possession for a long time though for all practical purposes they exercised these rights. The appellant has in his possession 7 acres of land as compared to 3 acres in the possession of the respondent. The appellant also has a cow breeding grant of 12 acres. His position there fore as regards extent of property in the possession of parties is certainly better than that of the respondent. It is true that respondent's family have rendered war service but it is only one of the several factors to be taken into consideration.

The learned counsel for the respondent has argued at great length to show that the order of the Collector was unreasonable and the learned Commissioner was justified to interfere. As would appear from the narration of facts given above this contention does not hold good. On the contrary it seems to me that the Collector's order was reasonable and the learned Commissioner erred while applying Land Revenue Rule 15. I would accordingly set aside the order passed by him and maintain that of the Collector.

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.