Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SHAFI VS Respondent: IMAM DIN
P L D 1963 W
P L D 1963 W. P. (Rev.) 56
Before Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑Petitioner
versus
IMAM DIN‑Respondent
Revision No. 584 of 1961‑62, decided on 2nd November 1962, District Lyallpur.
Lambardar----
--‑Appointment Person owning only three acres of land in Colony Chak can hardly be considered man of substance -Candidate's personal influence does not depend solely on tribal consideration‑Candidate must be person of character and ability.
Rao Muhammad Yusuf, Ch. Muhammad Siddiq and Ghulam Ali for Petitioner.
ORDER
Two main points have been argued before me in this revision petition which relates to the Lambardari of Chak No. 591/G B District Lyallpur. The first point is that the petitioner, though he was overlooked by the Collector whose decision was upheld by the Commissioner, has sufficient property to cover the land revenue demand of the patti concerned. His claims should not, therefore, have been ovelooked. This is not the correct way of interpreting Land Revenue Rule 15 (b) which runs as follows :‑
"In all first appointments of headmen, regard shall be had among other matters to‑
(a) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) extent of property in the estate possessed by the candidate ;
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner owns only about three acres of land and the Collector and the learned Commissioner rightly considered that it would be inadvisable to appoint a person of such small means as the petitioner has to the Lambardari. The fact whether the value of his property does or does not cover the land revenue demand is quite obviously besides the point in a first appoint ment, though it may form a material issue in the case of a here ditary Lambardari. Even in those cases the heir of the deceased Lambardar is required to give security to cover the land revenue demand though in my opinion it would still be open to the Collector not to make the appointment on the ground that the heir does not have sufficient means to maintain his position as a leader of the village community. A Lambardar owning three acres of land would hardly be a man of substance in a colony Chak and cannot reasonably be expected to meet the obligations of the post.
The second point which has been argued is that the petitioner has migrated from an area in East Punjab to which a larger per centage of Gujjars, the dominant tribe residing in this estate, also belonged. That would be making too fine a distinction in a Lambardari case. The policy has been to do away with these minute distinctions which do not find any support in the Land Revenue Rules. The reason why this argument is generally advanced is in view of Land Revenue rule 15 (d) which refers to the personal influence of the candidates. It cannot always be presumed that personal influence depends solely on tribal con siderations. In this particular case it seems to me that a person with the small means the petitioner possesses is not likely to have much personal influence unless he is a person of character and ability. This stand has not been taken before me. Thus in my opinion the decision arrived at by the officers below is justified and keeping in view the general practice of the Financial Commis sioners and the Board of Revenue I would decline to interfere. As a result the revision petition stands dismissed.
K. M. A. Revision dismissed.