MUHAMMAD AYUB MALIK, MEMBER (JUDICIAL- IV).- Brief facts of the case are that respondent Syed Saghir Hussain Shah made an application, dated 23.12.1999 to the District Controller, Layyah.
Therein he asserted that his grandfather Syed Rehmat Ali Shah having been appointed as the Group Leader, on his death, vide his order, dated 3.9.1958 the Colonization Officer Thai Jauharabad appointed petitioner Syed Iqbal Muhammad Shah as temporary Lambardar of the Chak i. e. Chak No. 106/M.L., Tehsil Karore, District Layyah. He further asserted that the allottees of the Chak had been granted proprietary rights of the lands in question and under the Rules in case of grant of proprietary rights for more than 50% of the land to the allottees, permanent Lambardar was to be appointed. He, therefore, requested for appointment of a permanent Lambardar for the said Chak.
On the basis of the report, dated 20.1.2000 of the Assistant Commissioner, Karore Lai Eisan to the effect that proprietary rights had been granted to 98% of the allottees of the Chak, vide his order, dated 15.2.2000, the District Collector, Layyah granted permission for taking-up proceedings for the appointment of a permanent, Lambardar for the Chak. The present petitioner filed an appeal against the said order of the District Collector. Therein, he opposed the appointment of a permanent Lambardar for the Chak. This appeal was dismissed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue) Layyah through his order, dated 12.1.2002 which has been assailed in the present revision petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel of the parties and have examined the relevant record.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had been appointed as temporary Lambardar for the Chak on 3.9.1958 and since then he had been working in the said capacity. The learned counsel asserted that Lambardar once appointed was a Lambardar for all purposes and hence no proceedings could be taken for any fresh appointment against the post.
The learned counsel referred to PLD 1993 Revenue 44 and contended that therein it had been held by the learned Member Board of Revenue that there was no difference between a temporary Lambardar and a permanent Lambardar. The learned counsel contended that in view of the said ruling of the learned Member Board of Revenue, the order, dated 15-2-2000 of the District Collector be cancelled and any fresh appointment against the post be forbidden.
4. The learned counsel for respondent Syed Saghir Hussain Shah argued that Syed Rehmat Ali Shah grandfather of the said respondent was appointed as Group Leader for the Chak and the land reserved for Lambardari Grant was allotted to him. That, he having proceeded on Hajj in 1958, petitioner Syed Iqbal Muhammad Shah made a statement before the Collector Thai Colony, Jauharabad that he had left the Chak permanently.. That on the basis of this false statement, the Lambardari of Syed Rehmat Ali Shah was cancelled. According to the learned counsel, on return from Hajj, Rehmat Ali Shah having agitated the matter of the false information given by Iqbal Muhammad Shah, he was reinstated on the post and after his death, petitioner Iqbal Muhammad Shah was appointed as a temporary Lambardar for the Chak and had been functioning as such till now. The learned counsel asserted that under the Rules, after grant of proprietary rights for more than 50% of the land of a Chak, a permanent Lambardar required to be appointed and hence the District Collector had rightly ordered for taking up proceedings in this regard. The learned counsel submitted that Rule 21 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968 clearly made distinction between temporary Lambardars and permanent Lambardars and the view taken by Mr. Akhtar Said, Member Board of Revenue in his judgment quoted in PLD 1993 Revenue 44 was against the spirit and the intent of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968. According to the learned counsel, with the grant of proprietary rights for more than 50% of the land of the Chak, the status of the estate thereof had changed from that of one owned chiefly or altogether by the Government and therefore as per connotation of the Land Revenue Rules and as per normal practice, a permanent Lambardar for the Chak required to be appointed. The learned counsel referred to PLD 1995 Lah. 512 and contended that in the judgment published therein, the Honourable High Court had made a distinct in-between temporary appointment and permanent appointment for the post of Lambardar and had held that on the death of the temporary Lambardar case for appointment of Lambardar had been rightly taken-up by the Board of Revenue to be the case of first appointment under Rule 17 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968. The learned counsel also referred to the judgment passed by Maulvi Anwarul Haq, Honourable Judge, Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 10421 of 1998 wherein the above-mentioned judgment, dated 28.4.1992 of Mr. Akhtar Said learned Member Board of Revenue quoted in PLD 1993 Revenue 44 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner had been held not to be based on correct premises. With these arguments, the learned counsel pleaded for upholding the order, dated 15.2.2000 of the District Collector and for the dismissal .Of the revision petition.
5. I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced from both the sides besides reference to the rulings relied upon by them. The order, dated 3.9.1958 of the Collector Thai Project Colony Jauharabad clearly reflects that through this order petitioner Syed Iqbal Muhammad Shah had been appointed as a temporary Lambardar of the Chak. The very word "temporary" used in this order is self- speaking. The use of this word for the appointment in question obviously connotes that the same was not made on permanent basis and was only a stop-gap arrangement and the factum of the appointment on permanent basis to be made at some subsequent stage was in the mind of the Collector. There could be no other visible reason for this except that in 1958, the estate of the Chak was chiefly/altogether owned by the Government and hence the Collector did not appoint a permanent Lambardar for the Chak and instead made the appointment on temporary basis.
6. Coming to the Land Revenue Rules, 1968 which cater for the appointment of Lambardars, Rule 21 of the Rules provides for appointment of temporary Lambardars till the appointment of permanent Lambardars in place of those Lambardars who become absentees by abandoning the estates.
Thus, the provisions of this Rule make/create a clear cut distinction between a temporary appointment and a permanent appointment i.e. Between a temporary Lambardar and a permanent Lambardar. Similarly, for appointment of successor Lambardars, the classification of the estates into two categories i.e. (a) those owned chiefly or altogether by the Government and
(b) other estates as provided in rule T9 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968 obviously connotes that with the change of the status of an estate from the one owned chiefly or altogether by the Government to the one not so owned i.e. Where proprietary rights have been granted to the allottees/occupants, the arrangement made for the post of Lambardar during and for the period of the ownership of the estate chiefly by the Government has to be revised. Had it not been so there was no logic for the distinction made in this Rule between the two categories of the estates i.e. These owned chiefly or altogether by the Government and "the other estates". Thus, the natural conclusion which follows from this distinction is that after the said change of status of an estate,, the existing arrangement with regard to the post of Lambardar has to be revised and fresh appointment against the post has to be made on permanent basis by (VoI.XXIlI taking-up proceedings a new. Logically, such proceedings will have to be taken-up under rule 17 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968 which provides for certain factors to be considered for first appointment. Thus, the appointment made previously, on temporary basis as to be terminated-. This view stands upheld by the verdict of Honourable Mr, Justice Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan of Lahore High Court, Lahore reported in PLD 1996 Lahore 512 where it was held that appointment of Lambardar on the death of temporary Lambardar was rightly taken by the Board of Revenue to be the case of first appointment under rule 17 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968.
7. In the context of the foregoing findings, the issue of the timing for taking up the appointment of a permanent Lambardar after the change of. The status of an estate from that of the one altogether or chiefly owned by the Government requires determination. With the start of the process of grant of property rights, from the one "altogether owned by the Government" an estate turns into the one" chiefly owned by the Government" and remains so till the grant of proprietary rights short of the limit of 50% of the land. On grant of proprietary rights to the lessees/grantees for land exceeding the limit of 50% of the total land, an estate loses its status , of the one "chiefly owned by the Government". Thus, logically, the proceedings for appointment of a Lambardar on permanent basis become due after grant of proprietary rights for more than 50% of the land stands completed. After such a change, the revising of the previous arrangement is necessitated for certain practical reasons as well. To elaborate, it may be observed that prior to the grant of proprietary /lights to the lessees/grantees, no land revenue is leviable on them. Similarly, they are not required to pay certain other cesses. Thus, the person appointed against the post of Lambardar has no responsibility or accountability on this account.
However, on the grant of proprietary .Rights to the lessees/grantees, responsibility in this regards stands created. The magnitude of this responsibility gets increased with the increase in the extent of the proprietary rights granted from time to time. Thus, before the grant of proprietary rights no stake or risk on the said account being involved, any landowner could ordinarily be appointed against the post of Lambardar without bothering much about the size of his landholding, his conduct and the extent of the influence he wields within the estate. However, after grant of proprietary rights of the State land to the lessees/grantees in order to have the requisite safeguards, it becomes essential to select such a persons who owns adequate land vis-a-vis the value of the Government dues to be collected from the landowners, is of good conduct and wields influence in the estate enabling him to successfully discharge his duties on multiple accounts.
Therefore, after the grant of proprietary rights for sizable area and particularly for over 50% of the land, for the afore-mentioned reasons, fresh appointment of Lambardar on permanent basis requires to be essentially made, In such a case, for obvious reasons, the temporary arrangement previously made will have to be annulled.
8. In view of the position discussed at length as above, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Lambardar once appointed is a Lambardar for all purposes and that there is no difference between a temporary Lambardar and a permanent Lambardar is without any lawful footing and has no validity. The only thing on which the learned counsel has relied upon for his said contention is the verdict of Mr. Akhtar Said, Member Board of Revenue reported in PLD' 1993 Revenue
44. For the reasons already discussed at length, the said verdict of the learned Member is not in consonance with the intent and spirit of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968 and his findings rather militate against the same. Also, in the judgment dated 9.2.2001 passed by Maulvi Anwarul Haq, Judge in Writ Petition No. 10421 of 1998 relied upon by the learned counsels for respondent Syed Saghir Hussain Shah, the Honourable Judge had also held that the said verdict of the learned Member Board of Revenue did not proceed on the correct premises. Besides, a case of similar nature being involved in this writ petition, the Honourable Judge had given a categorical verdict that once it was found that the Chak had been converted into private ownership, the proceedings (i.e. For the appointment of Lambardar) should have been conducted treating it a case of first appointment. Obviously, in such a case, the temporary appointment previously made would no more remain in force and would cease to exist.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the plea of the petitioner that he having been appointed as temporary Lambardar of the Chak, no proceedings for appointment of a permanent Lambardar should be taken has no validity and is devoid of any lawful footing. The revision petition thus having no merits, it is dismissed. The District Officer (Revenue), Layyah should go ahead with the proceedings for appointment of a permanent Lambardar for the Chak in accordance with the prescribed procedure. If the petitioner so desires, he can also contest for the permanent appointment required to be made. For this purpose, he should make an application to the District Officer (Revenue)
Layyah. In such a case, the District Officer (Revenue) should consider the candidature of the petitioner on merits' alongwith the cases of other applicants.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the District Officer (Revenue), Layyah for necessary action.