JEHANZEB KHAN (MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II)).--- Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the demise of Subey Khan.
' Lambardar of village Fateh Garh. Tehsil Sambrial the post of Lambardar fell vacant. Both the petitioner and respondent and others applied for the said post of Lambardar. The DO(R) Sialkot vide order dated 12-4-2006 appointed Munir Ahmad son of Faqeer Muhammad, caste Rajpoot Minhas as Lambardar of village Fateh Garh. Feeling aggrieved by that order. Muhammad Munir son of Allah I3akhsh, present respondent filed an appeal before the EDO(R) Sialkot who vide order dated 17-11-2006 accepted the same, set aside the order of DO(R) Sialkot dated 12-4-2006 and appointed Muhammad Munir son of Allah Bakhsh caste Khokhar, respondent as Lambardar of village Fateh Garh. Munir Ahmad, petitioner assailed that order in the Board of Revenue. Punjab through Revision Petition No,111 of 2007 captioned above. The case was taken up by the learned Member (Judicial-V), Board of Revenue, Punjab, who vide order dated 2-12-2008 rejected the revision of present petitioner and upheld the order of EDO(R) Sialkot dated 17-11-2006.
Consequently, Munir Ahmad son of Faqeer Muhammad petitioner filed a Writ Petition No,11368 of 2009 in the honourable High Court, Lahore. The honourable High Court accepted the same on 6-7- 2009 by declaring the order dated 2-12-2008 of the learned Member Board of Revenue, Punjab without lawful authority and of no legal effect and remanded the case to the learned Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab who shall either in his discretion, may retain ROR No,111 of 2007 which shall deem to be pending to his own file or entrust the same to some other Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab for decision in accordance with law. On remand, the learned Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab entrusted the case to this court vide order dated 16-8-2009.
2. Arguments heard and record perused. Written arguments placed on behalf of the parties also perused.
3. Mr. Qadeer Ahmad Rana, Advocate,_ counsel for petitioner contended that the impugned order of the EDO (Revenue). Sialkot dated 17-11-2006 was against the law and facts of the case. He did not consider the majority of the village regarding the wishes of the appointment of the petitioner and also did not consider the excessive land of the petitioner and had wrongly mentioned the 30- kanal land of the respondent and his other family members including Bashir Ahmad son of Ali Bakhsh, Praveen Akhtar daughter of Ali Bakhsh, Muhammad Riaz son of Allah Ditta, Naseem Bibi daughter of Allah Ditta, Razia Bibi daughter of Allah Ditta, whereas the actual land of the respondent, Muhammad Munir son of Allah Bakhsh is only 12K- 15M, whereas the petitioner has owned land measuring 44K -- 17M, 3K -- 8M, 7K -- 8M, in the village and 41K-9M in adjacent village Rohila Tehsil Sambrial and the total land of the petitioner is 55 kanals. He also contended that during the pendency of the case before the DO (Revenue), Sialkot majority of the landowners of village unanimously prayed for the appointment of the petitioner as permanent Lambardar. The father of the petitioner remained Lambardar of the said village as such the petitioner was also entitled on the hereditary ground and the petitioner has also ancestral experience to perform the obligations of the appointment of the post of Lambardar. The Local Revenue Authorities had recommended the petitioner to be appointed as Lambardar, whose recommendation should not be likely taken, as the apex Supreme Court has held in various judgments that any fit person may be appointed as Lambardar, in this view of the matter the report of the Revenue Field Staff have the much significance because they know much better who is the appropriate person to be appointed as Lambardar, therefore, EDO (Revenue), Sialkot had erred in setting aside the order of the DO (Revenue), Sialkot. The order of DO (Revenue)/District Collector with regard to the appointment of Lambardar had to be respected unless the same was foolish and perverse in the eyes of law. The order of DO (Revenue), Sialkot dated 12-4-2006 was well reasoned but the EDO (Revenue), Sialkot ignored the claim of major community. The respondent claimed hereditary rights under deceased Lambardar Subey Khan by telling lie and he deceived the revenue authority in connection with the affairs and such like person may not be appointed as Lambardar. Accordingly, it was prayed that the impugned order dated 17-11-2006, passed by the EDO (Revenue) Sialkot may be set aside by accepting the revision petition titled above and order of the DO (Revenue), Sialkot dated 12-4-2006 may be restored.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Liaquat Ali Butt, Advocate/counsel for Muhammad Munir son of Allah Bakhsh, Caste Khokhar, respondent contended that Subey Khan, deceased (uncle) of the respondent was an old man and during his life time the respondent had been working as "Sarbrah Lambardar" of the village and on 10-6-2000 Subey Khan himself submitted an application to the AC/Collector, Daska that being an aged man he was unable to perform all the duties of Lambardari effectively, therefore, he prayed that his nephew Muhammad Munir, 'present respondent may be appointed as "Sarbrah Lambardar" of the village. Accordingly; he was allowed to perform these duties. Thus, the respondent had been performing the duties as -"Sarbrah Lambardar from 2000 to 2004 in life time of Subey Khan and even after his death he continued to perform these duties uptill now. The respondent had a lot of experience in Lambardari matters. The learned counsel for respondent also contended that the respondent was owner of 31 kanals of land which devolved upon him from his ancestors through mutation of inheritance whereas the petitioner Munir Ahmad was not owner of land in the said village and in year 2004 when he purchased an area of 3 kanals, 8 marlas from. Bashir Ahmed etc. In fact, he purchased the said land with ulterior motive in order to show his eligibility as being landowner of the village. Anyhow the respondent has more land than the petitioner. The land owned by the respondent was sufficient to meet the requirements of "Zare-Bharat", whereas the petitioner Munir Ahmad having only an area of 3 kanals, 8 marlas could not afford to meet these requirements. Moreover, the plea of petitioner that he is also owner of some land in the other village and by including that land he is owner of about 41 kanals of land. The land held by a person in the same village is to be taken into account whereas land holding of other village could not be considered for this purpose. It was further contended that the respondent retired from Government service and his education was matric whereas the petitioner Munir Ahmad was quite illiterate person. The respondent is 56 years old having good health and fully fit for performance his duties of the Lambardar. The learned counsel for respondent allegedly contended that petitioner, Munir Ahmad belongs to a Qabza Group having not good reputation. He along with his other brother Naseer Ahmed and other members of his gang fraudulently occupied the building and area of the school of village and he is still in illegal possession of the said building and area of the school. The contention of the petitioner with regard majority tribe of the village is incorrect as reported by the revenue field staff dated 30- 3-2007 the petitioner, Munir Ahmad has only six families in the village with land holding of 58 kanals, 4 marlas only. On the other hand, the respondent has 8 families having an area of ownership of 240 kanals, 13 marlas which was their ancestral property land. He deposed that as per voter list of 2007 there were 116 families but the petitioner tampered with the number of families from 3 to 313 which was evident from the Halqa Patwari report dated 16-10-2008. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Rajput Minhas family but in the lower courts he at no stage had mentioned that he is Rajput by caste. The ground not taken in the lower court cannot be taken at Revisional stage. The contention of petitioner that his father was Lambardar in 1956, therefore, he had preferential right, is baseless because the rule .Of primogeniture is not more applicable at this stage. However, in 1956, his father was removed and Subey Khan was appointed in his place, therefore, this plea has no force and he is not entitled to be appointed as Lambardar at this stage on this ground. The merits and demerits of the case of both the parties were examined and discussed in the order of EDO (Revenue), Sialkot and the factual and legal position of the case had also been considered. The EDO (Revenue), Sialkot had validly appointed the respondent as Lambardar of the village on merits. Accordingly, it was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed and the order of EDO (Revenue), Sialkot may be upheld.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of both the parties and perused the record available in the case file minutely including the orders of lower courts. The appointment of successor Lambardar is to be governed under Rule 17 of the West. Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 as the appointment of successor of Lambardar under the rule of primogeniture was declared repugnant to the, injunctions of Islam. I ' give below the merits of the parties in terms of Rule 17 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968:--- 17(a) Hereditary claim Petitioner RespondentHis grandfather was a Lambardar His uncle was Lambardar.
(b) Extent of Property Petitioner Respondent13 Kanals, 11 Marlas 30 Kanals
(c) Personal or family service Petitioner RespondentNil Has sufficient experience in Lambardari matter as he worked with his uncle in his life time and is also performing his duties as Lambardar since appointment.
(d) Personal influence, character, Ability and freedom from Indebtness, education.
Petitioner RespondentMiddle pass Matric pass and a retired government employee.
(e) Strength and importance of Community Petitioner Respondent Hails from Minhas tribe who muster 6 families in the said village having ownership of land measuring 58 kanals, 4 marlas.
Hails from Khokhar tribe who muster 8 families in the said village having ownership of land measuring 240 kanals, 13 marlas
6. It is clear from the above that the respondent has an edge over the petitioner in the factors which are to be determined in the appointment of Lambardar under the Rules ibid. I have also given due consideration to the respective claims of the above said parties and have found that the hereditary status of both the parties seems to be equal, anyhow the respondent is a matriculate having more land than the petitioner, which is sufficient land to meet the requirements of "ZareBharat". The stance taken by the petitioner that he is also owner of some land in the other village and by including that land he is owner of about 41 kanal of land. The land held by a person in the same village is to be taken into account where the Lambardari is contested and the ownership of land in another village cannot be considered for this purpose. The DO (Revenue)/Collector, Sialkot vide his order dated 12-4-2006 appointed the present petitioner as permanent Lambardar against the law/criteria laid down on the subject without comparison of the contested candidates and therefore, the said order of DO (Revenue), Sialkot was rightly set aside by the EDO (Revenue), Sialkot vide order dated 17-11-2006 at appellate forum after hearing the parties and considering the merits and demerits of the case. The petitioner has produced nothing material evidence in rebuttal the finding of EDO (Revenue), Sialkot given by him in his order dated 17-11-2006. In fact the petitioner absolutely failed to bring out any legal or factual infirmity in the appointment of respondent as Lambardar of village Fateh Garh, Tehsil Sambrial, which has fallen vacant due to death of Subey Khan.
7. In view of what has been stated above, I find no justification to interfere with the impugned order dated 17-11-2006, passed by the E.D.O. (Revenue), Sialkot which is based on facts and good reasons. The same is upheld. The revision petition is rejected being meritless.
Petition rejected.