Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: CHIRAGH DIN VS Respondent: DIN MUHAMMAD
P L D 1963 W
P L D 1963 W. P. (Rev.) 86
Before Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue West Pakistan
CHIRAGH DIN‑Appellant
versus
DIN MUHAMMAD‑Respondent
Appeal No. 25 of 1962‑63, decided on 23rd April 1963, District Muzaffargarh.
Lambardar‑Appointment----
--‑Choice of Collector cannot be upset, if it is not manifestly foolish or perverse.
Syed Nasim Hassan for Appellant.
Kh. Abdur Rahim for Respondent,
ORDER
This is a second appeal which has been preferred by Chiragh Din of Chak No. 94/ML, District Muzaffargarh, who had initially been appointed as Lambardar, by the Collector, against the orders of the Additional Commissioner, Multan, who had preferred Din Muhammad respondent, the rival claimant. The reasons which prompted the Additional Com missioner to select Din Muhammad do not appear to me to be justified. He has stated that Din Muhammad owned 30 acres of land, but it is alleged, and it has not been controverted, that half of this area is held by him in his capacity as temporary Lambardar of the Chak. Further that Din Muhammad had worked‑as a Lambardar in Gujranwala and was also a temporary Lambardar of the Cloak. There is no evidence to support the former assertion. As regards the latter, the Collector preferred the petitioner in spite of this fact which was known to him. As a matter of fact the Collector considered both the candidates to be equally balanced in their claims and preferred Chiragh Din on grounds of literacy. Another point which the learned Additional Commissioner considered to be in favour of the respondent was that he had been recommended by the members of the Union Council and the officers below. The choice is that of the Collector and if the recommendations made by the lower subordinates have to be preferred over that of the Collector, it would be contrary to the scheme of Land Revenue Administration. The lower officers are merely to submit reports to the Collector and that too if he asks for them under the pro visions of section 17(3) of the Land Revenue Act. It is the Collector who is the competent Authority in Lambardari case to make the appointment. In my opinion interference by the Additional Commissioner on the points that have been men tioned by him is unwarranted on grounds of fact and law and I would prefer to maintain the choice of the Collector. Further it cannot be urged that the appointment made by him is manifestly foolish or perverse. I would accordingly accept the appeal, set aside the orders passed by the Additional Commis sioner and restore that of the Collector.
K. M. A. Appeal accepted.