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.
Appeal No. 1 of 1963‑64, decided on 9th December 1963, District Attock.
---Hereditary Lambardar ceasing to be owner in estate‑Can be removed.
---Appointment‑Substitute can be appointed in case of unavoidable absence or old age of Lambardar‑Land Revenue Rules, 1922, rr. 26 & 27.
Anwari for Petitioner.
The appellant Col. Sultan Muhammad Khan held the heredi tary post of a Lambardar in Kot Fateh Khan, district Attock. fie exchanged his property to another estate in the adjoining Tehsil and as found by the learned Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, conceded that he had left Kot Fateh Khan for good without any intention of residing there any more. He is at present left in possession of only one small field, the value of which is consider ably below the land revenue demand of the village which amounts to Rs. 500. The only reason why he wants to retain his Lambar dari is sentiment and the plea advanced is that Land Revenue Rule 16 (ii) (b) which has been applied to his case does not clearly cover it. Further that when considering his holding the officers below have not taken into account his share in the Abadi Deh. As the Lambardari is hereditary in character he claims that he should be allowed to have a Sarbarah and not dismissed.
The Collector had accepted the above pleas of the appellant and had allowed him to continue but the learned Commissioner interfered and set aside the order. The reasons given by him were that the holding of the appellant was so small as to disqualify him for carrying out the responsibilities attached to the office of a headman. The appellant was a big landlord of Kot Fateh Khan owing over 1200 acres which he has now exchanged and moved out of this estate there he has only a few acres left. It would thus be wrong to assume that he has any interest left in Kot Fateh Khan. The case is not one for the appointment of a Sarbarah which is governed by the provisions of Land Revenue Rules. rr. 26 and 27. It is generally in cases of unavoidable absence or old‑age or infirmity that the Collector permits the appointment of substitutes. As regards the alleged share of the appellant in the village Abadi I would agree with the learned Commissioner that this is neither here nor there. I would accordingly hold that their has been no infringement of the law or Rules in removing the head man and the second appeal stands dismissed.
K. M. A.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer