Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ISA VS Respondent: ALLAH BUX
P L D 1957 W
P L D 1957 W. P. (Rev.) 12
Before H. A. Majid, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
MUHAMMAD ISA‑Petitioner
Versus
ALLAH BUX‑Respondent
Revision Side No. 51 of 1955‑56, decided on 31st July 1956, District Lyallpur.
Lambardar------
---‑Appointment--------Vacancy caused by migra tion of non‑Muslims‑Gujars belonging to different districts of East Punjab‑Settled in one village‑‑Should be considered as belonging to Gujar tribe for the purpose.
Abdul Khaliq for Ch. Muhammad Hassan Khan for Petitioner.
Ghulam Ali Alvi for Respondent.
ORDER
H. A. MAJID.‑‑------The original petitioner in this case was Ghaus Muhammad but he died during the pendency of this case. His son Muhammad Isa replaces him as the petitioner on the ground that he had also been a candidate for this Lambardari appointment when the case was under the con sideration of the Collector.
The deceased petitioner was the Collector's choice, but the present respondent succeeded in his appeal to the Commissioner.
The objections against the respondent are (i) that though he is a Gujjar yet he emanated from the Jullundar district, whereas all the other Gujjars living in this Patti have emanated from the Ludhiana district and
(ii) that the respondent does not live in the estate.
The second objection is not based on facts, because the record shows that the respondent ; lives in the estate with his son and arranges for the cultivation of his land either through servants or through his tenants. There is some force in the first objection, but I consider that a Gujjar should be counted as a Gujjar even if he comes from a different district. If the Gujjars of Ludhiana had among them a person who had hereditary claims to a Lambardari appointment, their large numbers would have justified preference being shown to him as against the present respondent. The petitioner's family is, however, handicapped by the fact they have no hereditary claims to a Lambardari appointment.
In the above circumstances, I consider that the Commis sioner was justified in interfering in favour of the present respondent. I, therefore, dismiss this petition for revision.
K. M. A. Petition dismissed.