Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KANWAL KHAN VS Respondent: ALTAF HUSSAIN
P L D 1966 W
P L D 1966 W. P. (Rev.) 136
Before I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
KANWAL KHAN‑Petitioner
versus
ALTAF HUSSAIN‑ Respondent
Revision No. 83 of 1963‑64, decided on 28th April 1964.
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Candidate ignored only on ground that he was non‑resident‑Commissioner upsetting decision of Collector and appointing such candidate on condition of his taking up residence in village‑Order of Commissioner held proper.
(b) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Candidate's belonging to majority community is one of various factors to be considered at time of appointment.
Ch. Qamar‑ud‑Din for Petitioner. Mahbub Ahmed for Malik Muhammad Nadir for Respondent.
ORDER
This is a revision filed against an order dated the 10th of October 1963, passed by the Commissioner, Lahore, whereby he accepted the appeal filed by the respondent.
The facts of the case are that; on the migration of the non- Muslim Lambardar from this village, the post of Lambardar fell vacant and along with others, the parties contested the vacancy. The Collector' remarked that, although the respondent was the most suitable candidate yet, as be was not a resident of the village, he preferred the petitioner. The respondent went in appeal to the Commissioner, who passed conditional order that, if the respondent took up residence in the village, he should be appointed as a Lambardar. The petitioner has come up in revision.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. There are certain qualifications which were common to both, namely, hereditary considerations and the recommendations made by the revenue authorities. The quali fication of the petitioner was that he belonged to the predominant tribe and the respondent suffered from the disqualification of being a non‑resident. The respondent however owned a greater area than the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has laid great stress on the question of the petitioner belonging to the majority community. There is no doubt that he is Meo and the Meos predominate the village, but, belonging to the majority community, is only one of the various factors to be considered at the time of the appointment of a Lambardar.
The learned counsel for the petitioner also laid down great deal of emphasis on the disqualification of the respondent about his being a non‑resident. It was this very disqualification on the basis of which the learned Commissioner passed a conditional order. It is, therefore, clear that the respondent cannot act as a Lambardar unless his disqualification of being a non‑resident is removed.
In the end, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Collector's order should not have been reversed by the Commissioner. This very order on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner has clearly stated that Altaf Hussin respondent was the most suitable candidate. It is also clear that, if Altaf Hussain did not suffer from the disquali fication of being a non‑resident, the Collector himself would have appointed him. The learned Commissioner has passed a conditional order and, unless the respondent takes up his residence in the village, he cannot be appointed as a Lambardar.
In these circumstances, I see no justification for any interference. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby.
K. M. A. Petition dismissed.