This is a revision petition under Section 164 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 against the order dated 15.2.2006 passed by the EDO (R) Layyah whereby order of the District Collector, Layyah dated 16.6.2004 regarding the appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar of Chak No. 166/TDA had been set aside and appointment of Respondent No. 3 had been made as Lambardar.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Nizam-ud-Din father of the petitioner-Muhammad Zahid held the post of Lambardar of Chak No. 166/TDA, Tehsil and District Layyah. After his death proceedings for appointment of a substitute were taken whereupon a large number of candidates applied. The District Collector Layyah vide order dated 28.9.1999 appointed the petitioner as Lambardar. The Respondent No. 3, Muhammad Shafi filed an appeal against this order before the EDO (R) Layyah which was accepted vide order dated 16.4.2002. He cancelled the appointment of the petitioner and appointed the respondent in his place. The petitioner filed revision petition ROR No. 652/2002 before the Board of Revenue, Punjab which was vide Member (J-IV) Board of Revenue, Punjab's order dated 25.8.2003 remanded to the DO (R) Layyah for fresh decision. The DO (R) Layyah vide order dated 16.6.2004 decided the case and appointed the petitioner as Lambardar after affording ample opportunities of being heard to the parties. The respondent filed an appeal before the EDO
(R) Layyah which was accepted and appointed the respondent as Lambardar of the Chak vide order dated 15.2.2006.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the EDO (R) Layyah accepted the appeal arbitrarily and passed order in capricious manner violating the merits/criteria contained in the Rules 17 of Punjab Land Revenue Rules of 1968 governing the appointment of Lambardar. The said rules were not permissive and directory but the same were mandatory and obligatory. The petitioner owned 26 kanals land which was sufficient for the payment of `Zar-e-Bhart" of which price was about 9 Lac while the Dhal Bach was of only 40 thousand. The petitioner was graduate having a sound health and enjoying good reputation while the contesting candidate (Respondent No. 3) was primary pass. The petitioner was permanent resident of Chak No. 166/TDA. The petitioner had served in Pakistan Army for about 18 years. This factor play an important role in the appointment of Lambardar as envisaged in the Revenue Rules of 1968. The petitioner hails from Jatt Sukhanda who muster 40 families while the respondent hails from Jatt who muster 20 families, therefore the petitioner belongs to majority community and enjoys preferential rights. The learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the appointment of the petitioner made by the DO (R) Layyah after giving due consideration to the merit of the case as contemplated in the relevant rules, maybe upheld.
4. The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 contended that the petitioner was not resident of the said Chak and no absentee could be appointed according to law. The petitioner sold his land and now he become landless from the Chak and now a days he was serving in a factory and never resided in the same Chak. Many cases had been registered against the petitioner and one of the cases was abduction of the women so he was not reliable man and could not be appointed as Lambardar. The learned counsel for the respondent prayed that the revision petition may be rejected and the impugned order may be upheld.
5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record including the impugned order dated 15.02.2006, passed by the EDO (Revenue), Layyah.
According to Rule 17 of Land Revenue Rules 1968, hereditary claim of the candidate, candidate's community in the estate or sub-division of the estate for which appointment is to be made, extent of property of the candidate, educational qualification of the candidate, personal character, ability and influence and quality of farming of the candidate in the revenue estate has to be taken into account in the first appointment of a headman (Lambardar). On examination of the record, I find that the petitioner has an edge over the respondent as per criteria applicable on the subject, but EDO (Revenue) has decided the case only on the ground that Muhammad Shafi, present respondent has more land than the present petitioner and appointed him as Permanent Lambardar of Chak No. 166/TDA, Layyah against the rules and criteria laid down on the subject.
EDO(R) also stated in his order that Muhammad Zahid has moved out of his chak, and is involved in corruption, and does not carry good reputation in the area. However, EDO(R) orders does not give any proof of the above allegations, as such, no weight can be given to these issues. The petitioner has sufficient land to meet the requirements of "Zare-Bharat", but the EDO (Revenue) has ignored this aspect while passing impugned order. EDO(R) has not applied his judicial mind while deciding this case.
6. In view of the foregoing, I find that the impugned order dated 15.02.2006, passed by the EDO (Revenue), Layyah is suffering from irregularity and factual infirmity. The same is set aside and order dated 16.06.2004, passed by the District Officer (Revenue), Layyah is restored being well reasoned order. The revision petition is accepted accordingly.