Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS Respondent: HAMIDULLAH KHAN
P L D
P L D 1966 W. P. (Rev.) 143
Before I .U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑Petitioner
versus
HAMIDULLAH KHAN‑Respondent
Revision No. 101 of 1962‑63, decided on 29th April 1964.
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Estate comprising of 570 acres proprietary and 663 acres abadkari lands‑Abadkari area declared evacuee property‑Land subsequently acquired by Central Govern ment and given to claimants‑Abadkari land ceasing to be State land‑Appointment of Lambardar for such estate to be made under r. 17 (2), Punjab Land Revenue Rules.
A I R 1962 S C 284 ref.
(b) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Absentee may be appointed.
(c) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Landed property of candidate is one of factors to be taken into consideration for appointment.
(d) Practice‑Concurrent findings of fact by Collector and Commissioner‑Not interfered with.
Khalilur Rahman for Petitioner.
Javaid Iqbal assisted by Ghulam Ali Alvi for Respondent.
ORDER
This is a revision filed against an order dated the 30th of July 1963, passed by the Commissioner, Multan, whereby he rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
The facts of the case are that Haji Hussain Khan Lambardar died and the question of filling up of the vacancy arose. The parties contested and the Collector preferred tile respondent. The petitioner went in appeal, but the appeal was rejected. Hence this revision.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. His first contention is that rule 17 (1) of the Land Revenue Rules is applicable to this case. In this case, 570 acres are proprietary, 663 acres are Abadkari area and the remaining 156 acres are State land. The Abadkari area was declared evacuee and subsequently acquired by Government. It has now been given to claimants. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this area is still State land. I am afraid, I cannot accept this contention. The land was acquired by the Central Government and has now been given to claimants in satisfaction of their claims. It has, therefore, ceased to be State land. In these circumstances it is clear that this estate has ceased to be one chiefly or wholly owned by Government. The appointment to the post of Lambardar has, therefore, to be made under the provisions of rule 17 (2) and not 17 (i).
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred me to 1962 Supreme Court, page 284. This ruling is not at all applicable to this case because it was given' in respect of the rights of Muslim mortgagees.
Another point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent suffered from the disqualification of being an absentee and should not have been appointed. The learned Collector, with whom the learned Commissioner concurred, has given very valid reason for preferring the respondent in spite of this temporary handicap.
Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the area owned by the petitioner is greater than that of the respondent. This is however only one of the considerations.
I have considered all the aspects of the case but see no justification for any interference with the concurrent findings of the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner. They revision fails and is dismissed hereby.
K. M. A. Revision dismissed.