Law:

Section:

(a) Lambardar   -Appointment-Absentee not to be appointed.   P L D 1958 (W. P.) Rev. 103 fol.   P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 1106 rel.   (b) Lambardar   -Appointment-Collector's order neither perverse nor unreasonable-No interference.   (c) Lantbardar   -Appointment-Gujjars in majority in patti----- Two Rajputs already appointed in other two pattis-Gujjar appointed Lambardar.   (d) Lambardar-Appointment-Adequate security to be taken for Government demand.   .  ORDER   These two cases-R. O. R. No. 354 of 1957-58, (Sardar Muhammad Sher Ali v. Jamadar Abdul Wahid) and R. O. A. No. 386 of 1957-58 (Khan Muhammad v. Jamadar Abdul Wahid) may be taken up together, as they relate to the same order. Jamadar Abdul Wahid was heard in both the cases.   Respondent Abdul Wahid has hereditary claim, but does not reside in the chak. The Commissioner did not consider this as a disqualification and relied on P L D 1957 (W. P.) Rev. 8. In that ruling Mr. Majid held that an absentee with a hereditary claim should be preferred to a person who has no such claim. The view of Mr. Majid was that a hereditary claim should be given more or less prescriptive right. This has been overruled in the Full Board decision reported in P L D 1958 (W. P.) Rev. 103 and Mr. Majid's ruling on this point no-longer holds good. There are numerous rulings e.g. P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 1106, in which it was held that an absentee should not be appointed as Lambardri. In this case a suitable person, namely Khan l is available for…