Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUS SATTAR VS Respondent: RAI DAULAT KHAN
P L D 1960 W
P L D 1960 W. P. (Rev.) 82
Bejore M. Z. Khan, Member Board of Revenue,
West Pakistan
ABDUS SATTAR‑Petitioner
versus
Rai DAULAT KHAN‑Respondent
Revision Side No. 28 of 1959‑60, decided on 29th February 1960, District Lyallpur.
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Collector's order neither perverse nor unreasonable‑No interference.
(b) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Non‑resident‑Candidate resid ing on out skirts of village‑May be appointed.
Ghulam Muhammad for Qadir Bakash for Petitioner.
Muhammad Yaqub for Respondent.
ORDER
The petitioner was selected neither by the Collector nor by the Commissioner. It is well established law that the choice of the Collector in Lambardari case should not be interfered with unless it is perverse or unreasonable. It would appear from what follows that that is not so in the present case.
The respondent left three Lambardaris in East Punjab and was also an ex‑Zaildar. He owns 5 acres of land, is literate and was recommended by the Revenue Officers. The petitioner is an ex‑Lambardar, holds 3 acres and 2 kanals of land, is literate and was recommended by the Revenue Officers. It is clear that the claim of the respondent is stronger than that of the petitioner.
The only point which could be urged against the respondent was that he was a non‑resident. The report which the Commis sioner had called for shown that the respondent resides in house No. 11, Liaqat Road, Lyallpur.
Subsequent reports show that Chak No. 207/RB, is partly within the Municipal Limits. It would thus appear that the respondent resides on the out‑skirts of the Chak in question, although he may have a residential house at Kamalia also where he occasionally lives. As observed in P L D 1959 W. P. (Rev.) 135, the insistence on the Lambardar residing in the estate is due to the fact that only thus will he be able to look after the Lambardar affairs and will be available at the time of visits of Government officers to the estate. If the candidate happens to reside close to the estate, as in the present case, he should be able to perform these functions satisfactorily. In fact, the claim of the respondent is stronger in the present case because the material on the record shows that he had actually applied for a site in the Chak in question and it was stated that subsequently be obtained it. In the ruling quoted above there was no insistence that the candi date concerned should eventually reside in the Chak.
In view of what is stated above, I do not find adequate grounds for interference in revision.
The result is that the petition is rejected.
K. M. A. Petition rejected.