Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: NIAMAT ALI
P L D 1960 W
P L D 1960 W. P. (Rev.) 49 (2)
Before M. Z. Khan, Member Board of Revenue
West Pakistan
GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner
versus
NIAMAT ALI‑Respondent
Appellate Side No. 5 of 1956‑57, decided on 10th November 1958, District Lyallpur.
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Collector not taking into con sideration hereditary claim of candidate and appointing other candidate as Lambardar‑Order not reasonable.
(b) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Suitable candidate with here ditary claim and owing sufficient property to be appointed in preference to candidate, whose property is inadequate, though his tribe is more numerous, Islam‑ul‑Hag for Petitioner.
A. R. Khan Niazi for Respondent.
ORDER
The appellant was appointed by the Collector, but on appeal this order was set aside by the Commissioner, who appointed Niamat Ali as Lambardar of Patti Jamal Singh, Chak No. 94/G.B., Tehsil Jaranwala, district Lyallpur. The appellant is an Arain, which is the predominant tribe, is illiterate and was recom mended by the lower Revenue Officers. He owns only 42 kanals of land valued at Rs. 4,716 as against the Government demand of Rs. 6,907‑12‑0.
The respondent is a Gujjar, which is the second predominent tribe, holds 82 kanals of land, is literate and has a hereditary claim. The Collector did not mention the hereditary claim of the respondent and obviously did not take that into con sideration. That being so, his order cannot be called reasonable. When a suitable candidate with a hereditary claim and sufficient property is available, there is no reason why a person whose property is inadequate should be appointed only because his tribe is more numerous. When a tribe cannot produce a suitable person, it cannot be given representation only on the basis of their numbers. It would thus appear that there was ample justi fication for the order passed by the learned Commissioner.
The result is that the appeal is dismissed.
K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.