Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 555 of 1961‑62, decided on 20th November 1962, District Sheikhupura.

-----

--- r. 15(e)‑"Community" ‑ Displaced persons as a whole can reasonably be considered to be a community.

P L D 1952 Ph. (Rev.) 28 rel.

Absentee should not be appointed.

Mian Abdul Latif for Petitioner.

Malik Abdur Rehman for Respondent.

This case relates to the Lambardari of Chak No. 33/R.B., District Sheikhupura. The vacancy had occurred due to the migration of the non‑Muslim Lambardar after independence to India. Originally the respondent Shah Muhammad was appointed by the Collector, but the Additional Commissioner interfered in revision on the ground that he was not a resident of the estate. On remand the Collector came to the conclusion that Shah Muhammad did reside in the Chak and re‑appointed him. His rival Muhammad Hussain went in appeal which was dismissed. He has now filed a revision petition against the order of dismissal of his appeal by the learned Additional Commissioner.

The main ground which is taken up before me is that Shah Muhammad is in fact an absentee and for considerable periods because he has two wives and the younger one resides at Sangla Hill, at a distance of seven miles from the village. The fact of his second marriage, further that off and on he goes to live at Sangla Hill, all admitted what it is urged that the two places are connected by a metalled road and his absence would not detract from the performance of his duties as a Lambardar. This argument, however, is not strong enough. I have held in more than one case that an absentee should not ordinarily be appointed a Lambardar unless he is a person of such outstanding ability and importance that his selection would lend prestige to the post. In the circumstances of this case the respondent is an ordinary zamindar with a smaller holding than the petitioner and according to his own admission before me, of lesser influence. There are thus no grounds for appointing him a Lambardar except that he was a Lambardar in India.

The learned Additional Commissioner has tried to raise a somewhat fine distinction that another Jat who belongs to the same got as the petitioner has been appointed a Lambardar and therefore a Jat with a different got should now be appointed to the second Lambardari of this estate. These distinctions can go on without limit. The main reason why tribal constitution of an estate is taken into consideration when making the appoint ment of a Lambardar the presumption that a candidate belonging to the majority tribe would carry greater influence and weight. Actually the word used in rule 15 (e) is "community"‑This word has been defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as follows:

"Body of men living in same locality ; body of men having religion, profession, etc. in common". One of my eminent predecessors Mr. Akhter Hussain has held in Atta Muhammad Khan v. Talib Hussain (P L D 1952 (Rev.) Ph. 28) that displaced persons as a whole can reasonably be considered as a commu nity. These fine tribal distinctions should not therefore be taken into account when making the appointment of a Lambardar. In my opinion there was no justification for appointing a persistent' absentee as a Lambardar of the estate on the ground that he represents a sub‑tribe of the major tribe of Jats to which both the candidates belong. I would accordingly accept the revision petition, set aside the orders passed and appoint Muhammad Hussain as Lambardar of this estate.

K. M. A. Revision 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.