TAUQIR AHMAD FAIQ, MEMBER (Judicial-I).- The above captioned revisions have been filed against the order dated 27.11.1996 passed by Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan whereby he had accepted appeal of present respondent, rejected the appeal of Ali Haider and set aside the order of District Collector, Layyah dated 19.1.1995.
2. Facts leading to these revisions in brief, are that after the death of Wali Muhammad, temporary Lambardar of Chak No. 315/TDA, Tehsil Choubara, codal proceedings for filling in the vacant post were initiated by the Revenue functionaries. Only three candidates namely Nazar Hussain; Ali Haider and Munir Hussain remained in arena.
The lower functionaries including the AC recommended for the appointment of Munir Hussain, however 'the. District Collector discarded the commendations of the lower staff and vide his order dated 24.1.1995 appointed Nazar Hussain as Lambardar under rule 17 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968. Both Ali Haider and Munir Hussain filed separate appeals before Commissioner who vide his order dated 27.11.1996 accepted the appeal of Munir Hussain, rejected the appeal of Ali Haider and also set aside the order of District Collector dated 19-1-1995 regarding the appointment of Nazar Hussain. Being aggrieved of this order dated 27.11.1996, Nazar Hussain and Ali Haider petitioners preferred separate revision petitions in the Board of Revenue. Learned Member (Judicial-I) vide his order dated 5.9.2000 dismissed both the revision petitions. Nazar Hussain and Ali Haider sought review of the same order dated 5.9.2000 which was also dismissed on 7.6.2003. Nazar Hussain and Ali Haider then filed Writ Petitions Nos. 3936/03 and 3629/03 respectively in the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which were accepted; the order of Member Board of Revenue was set aside and the case was remanded to Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore with the observations that the competing claims of the contenders for the appointment of Lambardar shall be determined afresh as per applicable rules.
2. On the receipt of Judgment of the Honourable High Court, the case was fixed in this Court and all the candidates were summoned for taking cognizance of the case as per observations made in the said judgment. All the three candidates appeared alongwith their counsel Malik Ghulam Shabbir Khokhar counsel for Nazar Hussain petitioner argued that Wali Muhammad deceased was a temporary Lambardar. After his death District Collector Layyah appointed Nazar Hussain as Lambardar on 19.1.1995, in terms of Rule 17 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 because Rule 19(2) relating to the right of primogeniture was not attracted. He further argued that Commissioner and Member Board of Revenue did not give due consideration to the relevant rules in this point and Munir Hussain was appointed in place of his father under rule 19(2) of primogeniture. Now the rule of primogeniture stands declared repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The learned counsel for the Nazar Hussain further argued that the community to which petitioner belongs is in majority in the estate. Being representative of majority community, Nazar Hussain is an influential candidate and his appointment was mandatory under the rules. He further submitted that the observation of learned MBR in his order dated 5.9.2000 that both Dhool and Kharal are sub-Castes of Jat is erroneous and is not supported by the documentary evidence. He placed reliance on the copy of District Gazetteer, Muzaffargarh wherein it has been held that Kharal are Rajput and not Jat. He therefore claimed that Dhool Jat have a better claim on the post of Lambardar on the basis of their majority in the Chak. He further argued that Nazar Hussa. In has also been member of Khal Committee and played active role in the formation of Co-operative Societies. Nazar Hussain has been performing his Lambardari duties to the entire satisfaction of the Revenue functionaries. He owns sufficient property to stand as surety for the purpose of "Zar-e- Bart". Holding more land is not sufficient to claim superiority over the rival candidate. Counsel for Nazar Hussain stated that he has to his credit recovery of Govt, dues through 17 Dhal Bhachhes given to him during his period of Lambardari. He was rightly appointed as Lambardar by the District Collector, therefore, the order of learned Member dated 5.9.2000, 7.6.2003 and other dated 7.11.1996 of the Commissioner Dera Ghazi Khan may kindly be set aside and the choice of District Collector, Layyah may kindly be restored. The learned counsel for the petitioner Ali Haider argued that most of candidates had withdrawn their candidature in favour of Ali Haider but the lower Courts did not assess facts of the case property. Being representative of majority community he was the most suitable candidate. Petitioner Ali Haider owns 120- kanals land which is adequate for the payment of "Zar-e- Bart" and his general reputation and social standing in the community is manifested by his selection as Chairman of Usher Zakat Committee. The District Collector, ignored these facts while passing the order dated 19.1.1995. The Commissioner, erred in basing his order on the right of primogeniture and treating case for appointment of Lambardar under rule 19(2). Moreover learned Member also fell in error when he based his order mainly on the strength that both Kharal and Dhool are sub-caste of the Jat community. The counsel for Ali Haider further contended that order of learned Member Board of Revenue, Commissioner and District Collector may kindly be set aside and Ali Haider petitioner may be appointed as Lambardar of the Chak. The learned counsel for the respondent Munir Hussain contended that Munir Hussain is son of Wali Muhammad deceased Lambardar and according to rules and instructions, he is entitled to appointment of Lambardar.
Munir Hussain had done recovery of Government dues during the life-the of his father and Revenue officials were satisfied with his work. The reports of Revenue field staff are in his favour and he enjoys good reputation. More than fifty percent allottees of the estate land had obtained proprietary rights during the life-the of his father who was the deceased Lambardar. He further sated that both Kharal and Dhool are sub-caste of the main Jat community and the District Collector erred in considering the Kharal and Dhool as separate community. Munir Hussain possessing hereditary claim is entitled to appointment as Lambardar and the Commissioner Dra Ghazi Khan rightly appointed him as Lambardar of the Chak. As such his order dated 27.11.1996 may kindly be restored.
3. I have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel of all the three candidates, it has now him established even by the High Court that Wali Muhammad deceased Laimbaradar was only a temporary appointee and as such his son Munir Hussain could not claim any preferential treatment for appointment under rule 19(2) of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968. The Commissioner D.G. Khan erred in his view and so was the learned MBR when they declared Munir Hussain eligible for appointment in terms of rule of primogeniture as contained in rule 19(2) of the said Rules. No right accrues of the successor of a temporary Lambardar; as such Munir Hussain has to be considered at par alongwith the other contesting candidates so far as this appointment is concerned. The rule of Primogeniture having been struck down being repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam and also the fact that the deceased Lambardar was a temporary appointee, all the three candidates stand on equal footing and their claim would be considered on merit. Two candidates i.e. Nazar Hussain and Ali Haider belong to the Dhool sub-caste pf Jat community while Munir Hussain is Kharral by caste. The learned MBR in his order dated 5.9.2000 has dilated at a considerable length to prove that both Dhool and Kharral are sub-castes of Jat community and as such treated them at par with each other. I would rather disagree with findings of the learned MBR. The District Gazetteer of Muzaffargarh while discussing various tribes and sub- tribes of the district clearly describes. Kharral as descendents of Rai Boopa who are Rajputs who came from Jassalmair to Ush and thence to Kamlia in the Montgomery district. Kharrals are therefore to be treated as a distinctly different, tribe from the Jats. The report submitted by DO, Layyah vide letter No. 1194, dated 17.4.2002 clearly indicates that Kharral Bradari has only 10 persons owning 58 acres in this revenue estate whereas Dhool Bradari owns 630 acres of land and 210 persons belong to this community. As such Dhool community has a better claim to this post as compared to the Kharrals. The claim of Munir Hussain therefore abates in view of this argument.
While considering comparative merits of two candidates of Dhool community i.e. Nazar Hussain and Ali Haider, it has-been observed that Ali Haider owners more land i.e. 120K than Nazar Hussain who is owner of 80K. Ali Haider has not been recommended by any officer. Although there is nothing wrong with him but he has been consistently described as a rigid, inflexible and argumentative person and as such he was not considered suitable for this job by the DC.
Commissioner or MBR. Ft is settled position that choice of District Collector in the appointment of Lambardar should not be interfered unless it is found to be patently perverse. Reliance is placed on PLD 1962-R-112, PLD 1963-R-41 and PLD 1959-R-62. This view was persistently maintained and upheld by various Members of the Board of Revenue because of the fact that the Lambardar has to work under the administrative control of the District Collector. During the pendency of the case, on the query of this Court, the District Collector has submitted his reports thrice and has shown his satisfaction with the performance of Nazar Hussain. Nazar Hussain being the representative of majority community is considered to be the most suitable person for this job, I therefore restore the order passed by District Collector, Layyah dated 19.1.1995 with regard to the appointment of .Nazar Hussain. The order of. Commissioner, D.G. Khan dated 27,11.1996 is accordingly set aside. Needless to mention here that the order of learned MBR dated 5.9.2000 is no more in the filed as it has already been set aside by the High Court vide their order dated 17.2.2004.