| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1963 SLG 3124 = 1963 SLD 3124 = 1963 PLD 5 |
West Pakistan
Appeal No. 31 of 1961-62, decided on 21st July, 1962, District Multan.
Presented By:Nasir Ahmad Member Board of Revenue West Pakistan
Appeal No. 31 of 1961-62, decided on 21st July, 1962, District Multan.
Presented By:Nasir Ahmad Member Board of Revenue West Pakistan
GHULAM QADIR-Appellant
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ-Respondent
Law:
Section:
Punjab Land Revenue Rules----- -----r. 15-Factors for considera tion at first appointment of Lambardar. Lambardar-Appointment---- -----Collector's order reasonable-- Not to be set aside by Commissioner. ORDER This second appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Commissioner, Multan Division and relates to the Lambardari of Chak No.117/10-R, District Multan. The Collector had appointed the appellant Abdul Qadir but the learned Commissioner intervened in appeal and appointed Muhammad Nawaz, respondent, instead. A second appeal has been preferred against this order. The main ground that has been urged before me is that the learned Commissioner has erred in the application of rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. This rule is admittedly not com prehensive, and lays down only the important factors which have to be taken into consideration when making the firs appointment of a lambardar. The learned Commissioner after enumerating this rule came to the conclusion that the respondent had a better claim because his father was a Lambardar in India and had been working as a temporary Lambardar in this estate till his death. Further the respondent owns more land and his family has war service to their credit. The counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Commissioner has gone wrong in making his appraisal as a number of facts accepted by him are not correct. The petitioner's father was undoubtedly a Lambardar but as is evident from the order of the Collector he had been appointed a Lambardar in another estate, village Bamb situated in the same district. It is alleged that he had later on resigned from this Lambardari but that cannot by any process of reasoning result in a revival of his hereditary claim in Chak No. 117/10-R or in any other estate. From a copy of the order which has been produced before me by the petitioner's counsel the appeal in the Bamb Lambardari case had been rejected so that the respondent's father was to all intents and purposes a by confirmed Lambardar of that village. His resignation may $ mean that his son gets a hereditary clam in that…