Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM AKBAR VS Respondent: HAJI JINDWADA
P L D 1964 W
P L D 1964 W. P. (Rev.) 70
Before Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue,
West Pakistan
GHULAM AKBAR‑---Appellant
versus
Haji JINDWADA‑----Respondent
Appeal No. 242 of 1962‑63, decided on 17th October 1963, District Bahawalpur.
Lambardar‑ Sarbrah is agent of Lambardar and not direct agent of Government‑Credit for good work done by him cannot be given importance.
ORDER
This lambardari case relates to village Anwarabad, district Bahawalpur. The Collector had appointed Ghulam Akbar, appellant, who belongs to the majority tribe and was a respectable landowner owning 5 squares of land, two of which are situated in this village. He is also a literate person. His most important rival was Haji Jindwada. He had acted for a number of years as sarbrah of the last Lambardar, Munshi Muhammad Munir who had resigned. Haji Jindwada is a bigger land‑holder in the estate itself, as he possesses about 4J squares there. The learned Commissioner interfered in appeal on various grounds, the most important of which was the fact that Haji Jindwada had worked as sarbrah of the last Lambardar for over 20 years and was a bigger land holder in the village. It was also alleged that Ghulam Akbar was a non‑resident though there is no conclusive evidence to that effect without which the mere allegation should not have been given any consideration. The Commissioner appointed Haji Jindwada and Ghulam Akbar has now come up in second appeal.
The main reason that has been urged before me is that there were no good grounds for upsetting the Collector's order which was neither unreasonable nor perverse. The mere fact that the learned Commissioner thought that the service of a sarbrah A Lambardar should be given unusual weight is not enough for this purpose. A sarbrah Lambardar acts as an agent of the Lambardar, and is not really a direct agent of Government. The credit for any good work done by him cannot be given that much importance as it cannot be considered services rendered to the State. Besides a sarbrah also carries with him the weight and prestige of the Lambardar and it is the latter's influence and back ing which in no small measure is responsible for his efficiency or good work.
The respondent belongs to the Girwan tribe, without any other representatives in this village. In village life clannish and tribal considerations still hold great sway and it cannot reasonably be expected that Haji Jindwada would be able to exercise the required influence amongst the village community or be a good representative of theirs for administrative purposes. As already observed by me the services of sarbrah Lambardar are not direct services to the State and his good work is influenced not primarily by his own personality, conduct or character but of the Lambardar whom he represents. Sometimes the sarbrahs have even the status of employees of the Lambardars. The learned Commissioner has undoubtedly given undue weight and importance to this fact. Nor should he have been influenced by the mere allegation that the appellant is a non‑resident. Besides a similar allegation has been levelled against Haji Jindwada himself to the effect that he is a resident of Chak Norang, another adjoining estate. On the contrary appellant has produced a printed Voters' List which shows him to be a resident of village Anwarabad. I would, for the reasons given above, set aside the decision of the learned Commissioner and restore that of the Collector.
K. M. A.
Appeal accepted.