Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Revision No. 282 of 1961-62, decided on 17th April, 1962, District Multan.
S. 16-- Lambardar-Appointment-Case cannot be re-opened afresh-Com missioner upholding order of Collector-Order neither perverse nor foolish-No interference.
----
----Candidate's property in estate --Relevant factor-Punjab Land Revenue Rules, r. 15 (b).
Muhammad Rashid for Petitioner.
This case relates to the lambardari of village Dhamakki, district Multan. The Collector appointed Ala-ud-Din and over looked the petitioner Sadar Din, who belonged to the dominant tribe, on the ground that he had a small holding in the estate of 2 acres only. This area he considered insufficient to cover the land revenue demand which is approximately about Rs. 20,000 per annum. Even on other grounds the Collector considered Ala-ud-Din the most suitable candidate. The Commissioner has upheld the appointment made by the Collector. A revision petition has now been preferred.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to re-open the whole case in order to show that the petitioner was a better candidate than the one selected by the Collector. The provisions of section 16 of the Land Revenue Act cannot be invoked for the purpose of re-opening the case afresh. Where the Collector and the Commissioner have concurred in the appointment of a Lambardar the Financial Commissioners and the Board of Revenue have generally declined to interfere unless the order passed was perverse or foolish or the provisions of section 115 C. P. C. would justify interference on matters of jurisdiction and its exercise by the officers concerned. No doubt the petitioner has some land in another village and it is quite possible that his total holding would be able to cover the demand of the estate the Lambardari of which is sought by him, but it is the position of the candidate in the estate concerned which has to be considered. This proposition is borne out by a perusal of the provisions of Land Revenue Rule 15 (b), which specially lays down that it is the "extent of property in the estate possessed by the candidate which has to be taken into account". The reason for it is quite obvious and does not require any elaboration. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the orders passed and dismiss the revision petition.
K. M. A. Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer