Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: IQBAL MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: HASTA
P L D 1966 W
P L D 1966 W. P. (Rev.) 116
Before I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
IQBAL MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner
versus
HASTA‑Respondent
Revision No. 624 of 1964‑65, decided on 13th January 1966.
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment ‑ Candidate, a Canal Patwari, owning no land in patti, cannot be appointed.
(b) Practice‑Concurrent finding of fact by Collector and Commissioner‑Not interfered with.
A. R. Niazi for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Shafi for Respondent.
ORDER
This is a revision against an order, dated the 5th of December 1964, passed by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
The facts of the case are that, when the question of filling up a permanent vacancy in this Patti, caused by the migration of non‑Muslim Lambardar, came up for consideration, three candidates, including the parties, applied for the post. The Collector preferred the respondent. The petitioner went in appeal to the Commissioner, but it was rejected. Hence this revision.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at great length. It is true that the petitioner belongs to the Rajput community and his father was a Lambardar and he also owns more land, but he suffers from incurable defect of owning no land in this Patti. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred me to the following rulings:‑---
(1) P L D 1964 W P (Rev.) 16. (2) P L D 1963 W P (Rev.) 72. (3) P L D 1962 W P (Rev.) 20. (4) P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 1055.
So far as the first ruling is concerned, I respectfully differed from the view of my learned predecessor and gave a decision reported in P L D 1965 W P (Rev.) 21. In the second ruling, the appointment of a persistant absentee was not upheld. The third ruling relates to the fact that the learned Commissioner intervened in appeal and appointed a candidate holding larger area in the estate, but this order was set aside by my learned Predecessor. In the 4th ruling, it was held that the fact that a man is a Patwari, is no bar to his being. appointed as a Lambardar. These rulings are not at all applicable to the facts of this case, because the Petitioner is a Canal Patwari and at the same time he does not own any land in the Patti concerned. The legal position is quite clear. Even if the petitioner was appointed as a Lambardar in this Patti, he shall stand automatically dismissed under rule 16 (i) (c) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules.
In these circumstances, I see no justification for any interference with the concurrent finding of the learned Collector's and the learned Commissioner. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby.
K. M. A. Revision dismissed.