' WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI (MEMBER JUDICIAL-III)).--These review petitions have been filed against order dated 27-3-2013 passed by this court, whereby orders of learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, dated 17- 10-2011 and learned District Officer (Revenue), dated 14-5-2009, were set aside and case was remanded to District Collector, Vehari. As facts and law points involved in these cases are interconnected, therefore, these shall be decided through this single order.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Review Petition No.259 of 2013 contended that the Revenue field staff recommended the name of the petitioner for the post of Lambardar and he was appointed as Lambardar by learned District Officer (Revenue), Vehari, vide order dated 14-5-2009 and same order was upheld by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, vide order dated 17-10-2011. He further contended that learned Member (Judicial-III), vide order dated 27-2-2013, set aside the orders of learned lower courts and case was remanded to learned District Collector, Vehari. He not only ordered to dislodge the petitioner from the office of Lambardar rather illegally debarred him even to apply for it before the District Collector, Vehari in spite of concurrent orders of learned lower courts. Further, the issue regarding allotment of Lambardari grant in the shape of appeal or revision grant was not pending before learned Member, but through suo motu action the Lambardari grant was resumed. The reasons given in paras 11 to 14 by learned Member for dislodging the petitioner are replied as under:---
(i) The Rule 17 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968 does not bar any person to be appointed Lambardar of two adjacent villages. In support of his contention he produced PLD 1969 W.P. (Rev)
37. There was no bar under the law in the appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar of Chak No.1/M Kot Qadir. Made by the learned District Collector and Additional Commissioner. Aks Shajra prepared by the patwari halqa to show that Chak No.1/M Kot Qadir and Chak No.147/WB are of the same boundary and quite adjacent.
(ii) The petitioner is not only resident of Chak No. 1/M Kot Qadir but also certified by the Tehsildar, D.D.O(R), District Collector and Additional Commissioner in their reports and orders. In support of his contention he produced voter list and report of Tehsildar Mailsi. The petitioner is paying land revenue since 2009 and nothing is arrear against the petitioner. In support of his contention he produced photo copies of challan.
(iii) The learned Member, Board of Revenue, neither see the documents nor referred in the order dated 27-2-2013 which were produced. Malik Sajjad Hussain present respondent No.3 registered false F.I.R. No.239 of 2012 on 26-3-2012 in Police Station Civil Line Lahore under section 471/420/468, P.P.C. Against the petitioner that the petitioner has fake F.Sc.
Certificate. The F.I.R. Was cancelled after investigation by the police and checking the record of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore by Halqa Magistrate vide order dated 21-12-2012. In support of his contention, he produced order dated 21-12-2012 of Halqa Magistrate.
(iv) The case of theft of water was also false against the petitioner. In support of his contention, he produced order of S.C.O. Mailsi Canal Circle.
(v) The allegation regarding cultivating land of graveyard in Khata No.105. The graveyard is not only in Khewat No.105, but is also in Khewat No.106 and 107. In support of his contention he produced copies of khasra girdawari and register haqdaran zamin.
(vi) The allegation regarding Patti Wara, there are three Lambardaris in this estate. For the purpose of recovery of land revenue arrangement has been made that Jat community pays land revenue to Jat Lambardar. The petitioner also belongs to Jat community, in which the deceased Lambardar was also Jat.
(vii) The rules require influential and big landlord for the appointment of Lambardar so as to safeguard the recovery of the Revenue and other duties of the office of the Lambardar. This is a qualification of the petitioner that he is the biggest land owner as compared with any other candidate and also commands influence in all the government Departments which has been unfortunately made disqualification of the petitioner. The petitioner is Chairman of the Union Council and Ushr Zakat Committee. The petitioner is also member of the Peace Committee.
' In the end, he prayed that Review Petition No.259 of 2013, may kindly be accepted by setting aside the order of this court dated 27-2-2013, upheld the orders of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), dated 17-10-2011 and Lambardari grant of the petitioner be restored.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ehsan Elahi (Review Petition No.256 of 2013) contended that the petitioner is suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar and is owner of 32-kanals of land, which is sufficient to meet the requirements of Zar-e-Bhart. The petitioner is more educated candidate and enjoying good reputation. There is no allegation against the petitioner. In para 10 of the impugned order, it is mentioned that the petitioner is just a covering candidate but the petitioner is an independent candidate and is not just a covering candidate. He further contended that it was claimed by the other candidates that the petitioner was minor at the time of submission of application for appointment as Lambardar but at the time when learned District Collector decided the matter, the petitioner was major and was eligible for appointment as permanent Lambardar. Reliance is placed on 2013 SCM R 363. The application was submitted in year 2004 for appointment of Lambardar but the revision petition was decided on 2013, when the petitioner has already attained the age of 25 and Aad now become perfectly eligible. This review petition is fully covered by provision of section 8 of Board of Revenue Act 1957 and there are number of errors apparent on the face of record. In para Nos.8 and 9 of the impugned order, the learned Member rightly gave findings about Mumtaz Hussain, respondent No.2 and Sajjad Hussain, respondent No.3, who did not assail the order before any competent court of jurisdiction, which means they have accepted the findings about them given in impugned order dated 27-2-2013. On the force of above arguments, it was prayed that the Review Petition No.256 of 2013 may kindly be accepted and petitioner may be appointed as Lambardar of Chak No.1/M Kot Qadir Tehsil Mailsi, District Vehari.
5. Learned counsel for Mumtaz Hussain respondent No.2 argued that impugned order dated 27-2-2013, is very much right and there is no lacuna in the order. The review petition has been filed on the same grounds, which has already been taken in the revision petition. He further contended that according to section 8, no new point has been raised and review petitions are not maintainable. The learned Member has rightly set aside the orders of learned lower courts and remanded the case to learned District Collector, Vehari. Finally, it was prayed that the review petitions may be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 Malik Sajjad Hussain contended that the respondent is graduate and resident of same village. The respondent is zamindar by profession and owner of 48 Kanlas, 12 Marlas. He is ex-Naib Nazim of the Union Council and Chairman of Ushr and Zakat Committee of the village. He further contended that the petitioner did not remain defaulter and family of the petitioner is well reputed. The age of petitioner is 40 years and he is enjoying good health. The review petitioners have suspicious character, uneducated, have previous criminal record and defaulter of government dues. The respondent is paying the government regularly and nothing is due against the petitioner.
Muhammad Azam Khan, Review Petition No.259 of 2013 is resident of Multan and is absentee. The FSc certificate of the review petitioner Muhammad Azam Khan is fake and a case F.I.R. Was registered against him. The land of graveyard is also in possession of the petitioner Muhammad Azam Khan. In the end, he prayed that review petition may kindly be dismissed and petitioner may be appointed as Lambardar. The petitioner is permanent resident of the said village and in this way, he will be available all time. The petitioner is enjoying good reputation in the locality and he is also taxpayer. The petitioner is the most suitable candidate for appointment as Lambardar but he was not appointed Lambardar by ignoring the above narrated facts. The petitioner is an old aged person, who is more than 60 years old and so not a suitable candidate (Reliance has been placed upon 1960 PLD W.P. (Rev.)
75. The petitioner Muhammad Azam is not permanent resident of the said village, but he is residing at Multan. Thus, he being absentee could not be appointed as Lambardar under the law. The petitioner did not enjoy good reputation in the locality as a criminal case F.I.R. No.239 of 2012 was registered against him. Tawan was also imposed upon petitioner in year 2008. The petitioner is also Lambardar of Chak No.147/WB, therefore, he will not be able to perform duties of two Lambardaris. The petitioner is already Lambardar of Chak No.147/WB and aspiring for another Lambardari, which is against the law. Reliance has been placed upon PLD 1969 W.P. (Rev)
37. Finally, it was prayed that review petitions may be dismissed.
7. "Amicus Curiae" contended that review petitions filed under section 8, which has limited scope. This review petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not taken any new ground or fact. He further contended that even, if for arguments sake, it is admitted that the impugned order suffers with some legal lacunae, this Hon'ble court cannot adjudicate upon it, rather full board have such competency.
8. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, gone through record of the case including the impugned orders and written arguments submitted by the parties. Briefly stated facts of the case are that after the death of Muhammad Hasham Khan permanent Lambardar of Mauza 1/M, Kot Qadir, Tehsil Mailsi, District Vehari, applications were called for appointment of successor Lambardar. The District Officer (Revenue), Vehari appointed Muhammad Azam Khan, Review Petition No.259 of 2013 as Lambardar vide order dated 14-5-2009. The operative para is as under:--- "I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for all the candidates and perused the record file submitted by the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Mailsi. The post of Lambardar is lying vacant since 2004. The candidates Abdul Qayoom, Ghulam Abbas and Iqbal Hussain did not appear in the court which shows that they have no interest in this case. As per report of the Tehsildar, Mailsi dated 28-4-2009, the following table will show the position of outstanding government dues against some candidates or the deceased Lambardars. {{TABLE}} Sr.
No.Name of defaulter AmountHead of AccountRemarks 1.Ghulam Muhammad Khan, deceased Lambardar of 1/M (i.e. father of the candidate Muhammad Afzal Khan96,429Tawan/ Abiana
2. -do- 65,756Land Revenue
3. Muhammad Afzal Khan (candidate) 58,968Land RevenueKharif 2007-08 4.-do- 20,250AIT 2008-09 5.Haji Muhammad Suleman, deceased Lambardar of Mauza Tot Kot (i.e. father of the candidate Sajjad Hussain)86,359Tawan (canal)Rabi 2005 Kharif 2006 and 2007 6.Sajjad Hussain (candidate) 3000 AIT 2008-09
7. Muhammad Hashim deceased Lambardar of Patti in dispute 28,476Tawan Kharif 1997 and 1998 ' The above table clearly shows that the candidates Muhammad Afzal Khan and Sajjad Hussain were defaulters of government dues and similarly Ghulam Muhammad deceased Lambardar (father of the candidate Sajjad Hussain) and deceased Lambardar Muhammad Hashim (father of the candidates Muhammad Mumtaz and Muhammad Nawaz) were the defaulters of .Government dues as such they are not found eligible persons for the post of a Lambardar. Moreover, the candidate Muhammad Afzal Khan is residing in Lal Saggo whereas the candidate Sajjad Hussain is residing in Mauza Tot Kot Mali as such they are absentee and are not eligible persons for the post of a Lambardar. The candidate Muhammad Azam Khan has an edge over all the contested candidates with regard to education as well as proprietary land as he is an owner of land measuring 200 Kanals in 1/M and 1560 Kanals in other different villages whereas the candidate Muhammad Mumtaz owns land 3 Kanals, Fida Hussain owns 38 Kanals, 17 Marlas, Sajjad Hussain owns 6 Kanals Muhammad Nawaz owns 6 Kanals, Afzal Khan owns 16 Kanals, Ehsan Ellahi owns 32 Kanals. As per voter list produced by the candidate Muhammad Azam Khan, he is a voter of Chak No.1/M, Mailsi and he is a Lambardar of Chak No.147/WB, which is adjacent to Chak 1/M, as such he has sufficient experience of the post of a Lambardar. There is no complaint against him and as per citation produced by him, there is no objection for appointment of a person as a Lambardar of two Chaks adjacent to each other in the same district. Moreover, the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Mailsi, recommended the name of Muhammad Azam Khan for his appointment as a Lambardar. In these circumstances, the candidate Muhammad Azam Khan fulfils the basic conditions of Rule 17 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968 i,e, ability and freedom for indebtedness, hence, comparatively/preferably, is the most suitable candidate than the other candidates.
Therefore, Muhammad Azam son of Khan Muhammad, caste Jat Saggoo, is hereby appointed as a permanent Lambardar of Chak 1/M Kot Qadir, Tehsil Mailsi District Vehari against the vacant post i,e, Patti of deceased Lambardar Muhammad Hashim Khan."
' Aggrieved by the order, five appeals were filed by Muhammad Nawaz, Mumtaz Hussain, Malik Sajjad Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Khan and Ehsan Elahi before learned Additional CommissiOner (Revenue), Multan Division, which were dismissed vide order dated 17-10-2011. The operative para is as under:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' Against this order, 5 revision petitions were filed before this court by Muhammad Nawaz, Mumtaz Hussain, Malik Sajjad Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Khan and Ehsan Elahi. Subsequently, Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Afzal Khan, withdrew the revision petition. Remaining three revision petitions were disposed of vide order dated 27-2-2013 and case was remanded to learned District Collector, Vehari. The operative para is as under:--- "I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and have gone through record of the case and impugned orders as well. From examination of the record, it is evident that controversy between the parties revolves around the appointment of Lambardar of Mouza 1/M, Kot Qadir. Case of Mumtaz Hussain is taken up first. He is son of deceased Lambardar. His grandfather was also the Lambardar. He claims Lambardari on hereditary claim. Well if the Lambardari is a grant which is conferred by Government on the sole ground of hereditary claim even then he is not entitled to be the Lambardar. Mumtaz Hussain owns meagre amount of land not sufficient to meet the requirements of Zar-e-Bharat. The father of the petitioner (Mumtaz Hussain) defaulted in payment of government dues apparently.
Besides Mumtaz Hussain is locked in litigation with his real brothers. Nawaz Brother of Mumtaz Hussain withdrew his claim to Lambardari in favour of Muhammad Azam. Therefore the petitioner, Mumtaz Hussain does not seem to be the most appropriate candidate for the Lambardari.
' Sajjad Hussain apparently is a defaulter of government dues and he is also not permanent resident of Chak No.1/M Kot Qadir. He is a businessm an hence cannot most of the times be available to perform duties of Lambardari. Against Sajjad Hussain a F.I.R. No.239 of 2012 was registered during the pendency of this case which is though no bar yet reflects on his character. Sajjad Hussain was portrayed as a habitual litigant. Sajjad apparently committed forgery so was claimed by Azam Khan that 30-6-2005 was the last date whereas Sajjad Hussain filed application for Lambardari on 15-11-2005.
Being a forgerer would render him in eligible. Moreover Sajjad Hussain recently purchased land in the Mouza under question whereas the land owned at the time of order of the District Collector would be considered, improvement/addition purchase of land subsequent to Collector's appointment shall be ignored being the settled principle. Otherwise he owns sufficient land and is a graduate. He apparently does not seem to be the most fit candidate for the post of Lambardari Ihsan Ilahi is real son of Muhammad Azam and was pleaded as a covering candidate for his father. This fact brings forth the covert apprehension of Muhammad Azam that somehow it was not apt to hold two Lambardaris simultaneously. Hence the son was also fielded as a covering candidate. Why take two Lambardaris when the son is available. It was because of the fact and constraint that at the time applications for Lambardari were invited and he applied the son was a minor and was not fit to be appointed as Lambardar. But being large landlords of the area they would not let Lambardari slip out of their hand by way of all sorts of tactics and influence. Being minor at the time he applied for Lambardari Ihsan Ilahi cannot possibly now be appointed as Lambardar.
' Now the case of respondent No.3 Azam Khan is considered. It is admitted fact and is established from record that while already being Lambardar of Chank No.147/WB Azam Khan was again appointed Lambardar of another Chak No. 1/M Kot Qadir, making him Lambardar of two villages at the same time. He seems indispensable for the administration which is reflective of the influence wielded by the respondent. However the `Jagirdaran' a system, the landlordism was strengthened by the administration by giving two Lambardaris were given to the same person who would not let go the swa y and the power. The spirit of the Land Reforms no matter how remotely but is violated by appointing one person Lambardar of two 'Chakooks' in the same breath. Landlordism is strengthened at the cost of poor/common man being oppressed relentlessly from ages.
' Even otherwise the appointment of Azam Khan cannot possibly be upheld on the following grounds:---
(I) Muhammad Azam the respondent being absentee was made Lambardar of Chak No. 1/M Kot Qadir etc. Besides the respondent has his permanent abode in Multan, he could not possibly efficiently run the affairs of the Lambardari. On top of that he was appointed Lambardar of two villages simultaneously .Which is not just and fair.
(II) Azam Khan the respondent's FSc degree was challenged as fake. A case F.I.R. Was got registered. Investigation of which is still underway which if no bar yet reflects on his character.
(III) Cases of water theft exist against him. Against the tawan imposed appeals have been filed by him (admitted fact).
(IV) In accordance with Khatta No.105 Naqsha Chak No. 1/M Kot Qadir proposed land for graveyard is apparently under his (the respondent's) illegal cultivation.
(V) Traditionally though not strictly recorded the patti belongs to Khokhar Jatts, who are in majority. The majority community has been deprived. Whereas for the caste Saggo (to which Azam Khan belongs) brother-in-law of Azam Khan already stands appointed as Lambardar.
' No doubt appointment of Lambardar is no infringement of rights nor a recognition of a civil right. It is a grant by way of an appointment of the agent of the government. But this grant has to be bestowed prudently protecting the interests of the State and the general public. It is not a discretionary grant to be arbitrarily extended as a gift to the wealthy and the large landlords, that too in double.
' Therefore in all fairness and to uphold justice the Lambardari of Chak No. 1/M Kot Qadir given to Muhammad Azam the respondent is cancelled and withdrawn forthwith. The impugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded to the District Collector for seeking fresh applications from all the old and fresh applicants who might apply for fresh and new appointment of Lambardar of Chak No.1/M Kot Qadir's Patti in question.
' However Muhammad Azam Khan being already a Lambardar will not be eligible for this Chak.
' Furthermore the Lambardari grant involved in this case is also cancelled from the name of Azam Khan the respondent No.03. Possession of which shall be taken over forthwith and an impartial receiver shall be appointed for the Lambardari grant till the final appointment of the new Lambardar. Accordingly immediate compliance is directed. The case is disposed off. Also the contempt of court application in this case stands disposed of.
' The orders dated 14-5-2009 passed by District .Officdr (Revenue), Vehari and order dated 17-1-2011 passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, suffer from legal and factual infirmities. These are set aside and the cases are remanded to the District Collector, Vehari, with the direction to decide the case afresh after hearing contention of the parties strictly in accordance with law."
' From the above it appeared that following three issues needs adjudication into the matter.
(1) Maintainability of review petition under section 8 of Board of Revenue Act, 1957.
(2) Holding of Lambardaris of two villages by one person at one time.
(3) Examination of eligibility of contestants.
Maintainability of review petition under section 8 of Board of Revenue Act, 1957.
' Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 and 3 contended that the review petition is not maintainable, because the review petitioner Muhammad Azam Khan has not brought any new ground or fact in the review petition, so, the review petition is not maintainable. It was also contended that even, if, it is admitted that some new fact/ground has been raised in the review petition, the matter becomes within the jurisdiction of Full Board. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to section 8 of Act ibid and pointed out some instances of non-reading of contentions of the review petitioner submitted before this court in revision petition, which could not be taken into consideration while passing impugned order by this court and took stance that matter falls under the ambit of mistake/error as envisaged in section 8 of Board of Revenue Act, 1957.
' The section 8 of Board of Revenue Act, 1957ambit reads as under:---
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree passed or order made by the Board and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order was made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him may apply to the Board for a review of judgment and the Board may, after giving notice to the parties affected thereby and after hearing them, pass such decree or order as the circumstances of the case require.
(2) Every application for a review of a decree or order under subsection (1) shall be made within ninety days from the date of that decree or order.
' During arguments, it was pointed out that satisfying arguments along with documentary evidence in rebuttal of these ineligibilities/allegations against the review petitioner was provided in the revision petition before this court, which are available in the revision petition. The detail of such discrepancies in detailed as under:--- Ineligibility held in impugned orderContention of review petitioner (Muhammad, Azam Khan)
Muhammad Azam the respondent being absentee was made Lambardar of Chak No.1/M Kot Qadir etc. Besides the respondent has his permanent abode in Multan, he could not possibly efficiently run the affairs of the Lambardari. On top of that he was appointed Lambardar of two villages simultaneously which is not just and fair.The petitioner is not only resident of Chak No.1/M Kot Qadir but also certified by the Tehsildar, D.D.O(R), District Collector and Additional Commissioner in their reports and orders. In support of his contention he produced voter list and report of Tehsildar Mailsi. The petitioner is paying land revenue since 2009 and nothing arrear is against the petitioner. In support of his contention he produced photocopies of challan. The Rule 17 of the Land Revenue Rules 1968 does not bar any person to be appointed Lambardar of two adjacent villages. In support of his contention he produced PLD 1969 W.P.
(Rev.) 37.
There was no bar under the law in the appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar of Chak No.1/M Kot Qadir made by the learned District Collector and Additional Commissioner.
Aks Shajra prepared by the patwari halqa to show that Chak No.1/M Kot Qadir and Chak No.147/WB are of the same boundary and quite adjacent.
AzamKhantherespondent'sFScdegreewaschallengedasfake. A case F.I.R. was got registered. Investigation of which isstillunderwaywhichifno baryetreflectsonhis character.The learned Member, Board of Revenue, neither see the documents nor referred in the order dated 27-2- 2013 which were produced.
Malik Sajjad Hussain, present respondent No.3 registered false F.I.R.
No.239/12 on 26-3-2012 in Police Civil Line Lahore under section 471/420/468 P.P.C. against the petitioner that the petitioner has fake F.Sc. certificate. The F.I.R. was cancelled after investigation by the police and checking of the record of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore by Halqa Magistrate vide order dated 21-12- 2012. In support of his contention, he produced order dated 21-12-2012 of Halqa Magistrate.
Casesofwatertheftexistagainsthim.Againstthetawanimposedappealshavebeenfiledbyhim(admittedfact).The case of theft of water was also falls against the petitioner. In support of his contention, he produced order of S.C.O.
Maisli Canal Circle.
In accordance with Khatta No.105 Naqsha Chak No.1/M Kot Qadir proposed land for graveyard is apparently under his (the respondent's) illegal cultivation.The allegation regarding cultivating land of graveyard in Khata No.105.
The graveyard is not only in Khewat No.105, but is also in Khewat Nos.106and
107. In support of his contention he produced copies of khasra girdawari and register haqdaran zamin.
Traditionally though not strictly recorded the patti belongs to Khokhar Jatts, who are in majority . The majority community has been deprived. Whereas for the caste Saggo (to which Azam Khan belongs) brother-in-law of Azam Khan already stands appointed as Lambardar.The allegation regarding Patti Wara, there are three Lambardaris in this estate.
For the purpose of recovery of land revenue arrangement has been made that Jat community pays land revenue to Jat Lambardar.
The petitioner also belongs to Jat community, in which the deceased Lambardar was also Jat.
' From the above, it is apparent that these documents skipped the view of this court while passing the impugned order, so the review petition becomes maintainable/entertainable. Reliance is placed upon PLJ 1996 SC 43, which reads as under:- -- "Review petition would also be competent if something, which is obvious in judgment has either been overlooked and that if it would have been considered by court, final result of case would have been. Otherwise".
Holding of Lambardaris of two villages.
' Learned counsel for the review petitioner contended that there is no bar in the law to hold two Lambardaris by one person at the same time. For the purpose, he read out section 17 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 in which no such bar is mentioned or at least one can say that it is silent about the issue. Further relied upon PLD 1969 W.P. (Rev.) 37, whereby it has been held that one person can hold Lambardari of two adjoining "chakook" at one time. The other party contested the stance of review petitioner and relied upon the same case-law with the contention that two Lambardaris have been barred by this authority.
' Such case-law was perused which reads as under:- "Under section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 the Board of Revenue can exercise suo motu powers at any time, therefore the legal plea of learned counsel has no basis. It is admitted that the respondent is holding two Lambardaris in Chaks Nos. 39 and 40/4-L of District Sahiwal. There can be no objection to his appointment in the two Chaks of District Sahiwal because they are adjacent to each other. However, he has to be treated as a absentee from one of the three Lambardaris and he cannot be able to perform the duties properly in both Districts. The respondent was given a choice to hold either the two adjoining Lambardaris in the District Sahiwal or the Lambarciaris or Lyallpur District.
He preferred to hold the two Lambardaris in District Sahiwal."
' From the above it is clear that there is no bar, as per law, to hold two Lambardaris by one person at the same time of adjoining villages. In the instant particular case, the Chaks are 147/WB and 1/M, Kot Qadir, Tehsil Mailsi and as per site plan produced during proceedings, both chaks are adjoining.
Examination Eligibility of contestants ' In total 11 candidates applied for the post of Lambardar before learned District Collector. Finally, following seven candidates remained in the final contest and review petitioner Muhammad Azam Khan was appointed as Lambardar:---
(1) Muhammad Nawaz. (2) Mumtaz Hussain (3) Malik Sajjad Hussain (4) Muhammad Afzal Khan (5) Ehsan Elahi (6)
Muhammad Azam Khan (7) Fida Hussain. Against the order of District Collector, following five candidates filed appeals before learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan:---
(1) Muhammad Nawaz (2) Mumtaz Hussain (3) Malik Sajjad Hussain (4) Muhammad Afzal Khan (5) Ehsan Elahi. Against the order of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, five revision petitions were filed before this court by the following contestants:--- ' Out of the above following two withdrew their revision petition, afterwards:---
(1) Muhammad Nawaz. (2) Muhammad Afzal Khan ' So, in actual, four persons are the real contestants in the eyes of law. Because others have conceded to the orders of learned District Collector and learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, by not filing the appeals or withdrawing the same in the process. However, against the order of this court dated 27-2-2013 following filed review petitions:---
(1) Muhammad Azam Khan (2) Ehsan Elahi.
' Mumtaz Hussain and Malik Sajjad Hussain were made respondents in both Review Petitions i,e, No.259 of 2013 and also Review Petition No.256 of 2013. So, it becomes more clear that in actual, these four persons are serious contestants into the matter. The three contestants namely Mumtaz Hussain, Malik Sajjad Hussain and Ehsan Elahi were declared ineligible by learned District Collector and learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, as well. Even, this court while deciding revision petitions discussed the eligibility issues of these three candidates and did not absolve them from the ineligibility issues. Further, there may be a situation, where more than one candidates are eligible for the post.
But at one time only one person could be appointed as Lambardar of a Village. In this particular case, the learned District Collector appointed the review petitioner Muhammad Azam Khan as Lambardar and the same was upheld by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan. In such a situation, the weightage would be given to the choice of the Collector. (Reliance is placed on 2004 YLR 440). The review petitioner Muhammad Azam Khan has been ousted by order of this court mainly on two counts, first that one person cannot hold two Lambardaris, which has abundantly been cleared through above discussion that there is no bar in holding of two Lambardaris at one time specifically when the villages are adjacent. (Reliance has been placed on PLD 1969 W.P. (Rev.) 37). Secondly, on the basis of certain ineligibilities/allegations mentioned in order of this court dated 27-2-2013, which has amply and justifiably been responded by the review petitioner in the revision petition, but the same might not be taken into consideration at the time of passing impugned order by this court. But these ineligibilities/allegations pointed out by the contestants have been washed away by the documentary evidence produced by the review petitioner.
9. In the light of above, it becomes clear that the orders dated 14-5-2009 and 17-10-2011 passed by learned. District Collector and learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, respectively are in accordance with law and needed no interference. Hence, the Review Petition No.259 of 2013 is accepted, Review Petition No.256 of 2013, is dismissed and order of this court dated 27-2-2013, is set aside.
10. Arguments were heard on 29-1-2014 and order was reserved, which is announced today i,e, 30-1-2014. Parties be informed.