Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MST. ALLAH JAWAI VS Respondent: BAHAWAL
P L D 1966 W
P L D 1966 W. P. (Rev.) 189
Before I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
Mst. ALLAH JAWAI‑Petitioner
versus
BAHAWAL‑Respondent
R. R. No. 1196 of 1963‑64, decided on 5th January 1966, District Jhang.
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment--"Female candidate‑Appointment is regulated by Punjab Land Revenue Rules, r. 17 (ii) (d)‑Female can be appointed when she is sole owner or special reasons for giving her preference exist.
(b) Revision‑Concurrent findings of fact by Collector and Commissioner‑Not interfered with.
Miss Qari for Petitioner. . Iqbal Ahmad Siddiqi for Respondent.
ORDER
This is a revision filed against an order dated the 15th of January 1964, passed by Commissioner, Sargodha Division, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected.
The facts of the case are that Wali Dad Lambardar of the village died and eight candidates including the parties and the sister of the petitioner applied for the post. Ultimately the Collector appointed the respondent. The petitioner and her sister went in appeal but both the appeals , were rejected. Only the petitioner has come up in revision.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at great length. The law on the point is quite clear. The case is governed by rule 17 (ii) (d) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. A female can be appointed only when one of the two conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. Either she should be a sole owner or there should be special reasons for giving her preference over other candidates. In this case, it is established that she is not sole owner and, therefore, she cannot claim appointment on this consideration.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to show that there are special reasons and, in this connection, she has mentioned the hereditary claim and the age of the petitioner and the fact that she is the biggest landholder. They may be qualifications but they cannot be considered as special reasons.
On the last hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the father of the petitioner had applied for the appointment of the petitioner as Sarbrah Lambardar and I post poned the case for making enquiries as to what orders were passed on this alleged application. A report has been received from the Collector that the petitioner was never ‑ appointed as a Sarbrah. No preference can, therefore, be given on this ground.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred me to the following rulings:‑---
(i) P L D 1950 (Rev.) 980. (ii) P L D 1950 (Rev.) 1003. (iii) P L D 1950 (Rev.) 1025. (iv) P L D 1958 (Rev.) 138.
In the first three rulings, there were special reasons for which the female candidate was given preference and this was in accordance with the rule 17 (ii) (d). In the last mentioned ruling, one of my learned predecessors did not interfere with the appointment of a lady as a lambardar.
In this particular case, I find that the petitioner is neither the sole owner nor there are special reasons on account of which she can claim preference for appointment as Lambardar. I, therefore, see no justification for interfering with the concurrent findings of the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby.
K. M. A. Revision dismissed.