Law:

Section:

  (a)Lambardar-Appointment-Hereditary claim-Colony Chak-Proper criterion for determining whether Lambardari is hereditary or not qua claimant should be with reference to condi tions prevailing during time of deceased Lambardar.   Ghulam Muhammad v. Abdul Hamid P L D 1958 W. P. (Rev.) 40 not fol.   (b)Lambardar-Appointment -Absentee in absence of excep tional circumstances generally should not be appointed.   ORDER   This case relates to the Lambardari of Chak No. 34 Tehsil Phalia, District Gujrat. The last Lambardar died on 12-1-1959, when it is urged that a major part of the estate was still owned by Government. The Collector accordingly proceeded to make the appointment under Land Revenue Rule 17 (I) i.e., as if it were a non-hereditary appointment, and selected Major Sultan Sikandar Hayat Khan. The learned Additional Commis sioner, however, held that the Lambardari was hereditary in character, as he privately owned a major part of the estate, i.e., at the time of consideration of the appeal. In this con nection he relied on Ghulam Muhammad v. Abdul Hamid (P L D 1958 W. P. (Rev.) 40) in which my learned predecessor Mr. M. Z. Khan expressed the view that taking into consideration the facts which existed at the time 'the Lambardari became vacant would lead to an anomalous position. It is possible that at the time of the death of the Lambardar proprietary rights might have been obtained in a negligible area while by the time the Collector passes his order proprietary rights might have been acquired in' the entire estate. With due respect I am not inclined to agree with this view. If a person has to rely on hereditary claims it would obviously be with reference to facts as they existed in his prede cessor's time or at best at the time of his death. On the contrary it seems anomalous to me that changes, which have subsequently taken place, should be allowed to be taken advantage of by a person who claims a Lambardari on the principle of heredity. Thus in my humble…