Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: BADAR DIN VS Respondent: SARDAR ALI
PL D 1960 W
PL D 1960 W. P. (Rev.) 77
Before M. Z Khan, Member Board of Revenue,
West Pakistan
BADAR DIN‑Petitioner
versus
SARDAR ALI‑Respondent
Revision Side No. 320 of 1958‑59, decided on 23rd November 1959, District Montgomery.
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Candidate old and having defective sight‑Not suitable‑Appointment of Sarbrah held not justified.
(b) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Candidate having no property in Patti ‑Not to be appointed.
(c) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Rajput appointed in one Patti Suitable candidate from Jats having numerical strength in Patti may be appointed in other Patti.
Javed Iqbal for Petitioner.
Hasan Akhtar for Respondent.
Muhammad Hasan for Respondent No. 2.
ORDER
These two petitions‑R. O. R.1,No. 320 of 1958‑59 (Badar Din v. Sardar Ali) and R. O. R. No. 23 of 1959‑60 (Muhammad Siddiq v. Sardar Ali)‑may be taken up together, as they relate to the same order.
Respondent Sardar Ali is 80 years of age. He is a Rajput, which is the second numerically strong tribe in the Patti. He pled a petition that owing to his age anal defective sight, hg was not in a position to perform the duties of a Lambardar and so a Sarbrah may be appointed. In R. O. R. No. 99 of 1957‑58 (Rehamat Khan v. Abdul Rehman) it was held that the appointment of a Sarbrah is not intended for such cases.
The respondent has no property in Patti Sant Singh in which he has been appointed. In the circumstances of the case, I do not find adequate justification for re‑adjusting the Patties in order that the land of the respondent might fall in the Patti in question.
In view of what is stated above, there was no reasonable ground for appointing Sardar Ali as Lambardar.
Muhammad Siddiq has 10 acres of land in the Patti and 13 acres elsewhere. He is a Rajput. Badar Din has 81 acres of land in the Patti and 1 J acres elsewhere. His land is adequate as security for the Government demand. It was alleged that on account of the part he played in a Sessions case his Pachotara was forfeited by the Collector. A certified copy of the order was filed. This was countered by Badar Din with the observation that an appeal was filed against that order and the Commissioner held that Badar Din was not to blame. Order forfeiting the Pachotara was set aside. The difference between the strength of the Rajputs and Jats in this Patti is small. A Rajput has already been appointed in another Patti of the Chak. Rajputs are the second largest tribe in this Patti. Under these circumstances the claim of a Jat to appointment in this Patti is stronger because considering their strength in the Patti they should not be left altogether un represented, especially when a suitable candidate from that community is available.
The result is that the petition of Muhammad Siddiq is rejected, while that of Badar Din is allowed and he is appointed as Lambardar in place of Sardar Ali.
K. M. A. Appeal partly allowed.