' WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III).--These revision petitions have been filed against order dated 16-7-2013, passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, whereby appeals of the present petitioners were dismissed. As facts and law points involved in these cases are interconnected, therefore, these shall be disposed of through this single order and copy of the same shall be placed in each file.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner of ROR No.1847 of 2013 argued that after receipt of application for appointment of Lambardar of Chak No.16/WB, Tehsil and District Vehari, learned District Collector, Vehari, appointed respondent No.1, Sahab Bibi, widow of the deceased Lambardar. The petitioner along with Muhammad Imtiaz respondent No.2 and Muhammad Riaz respondent No.3 challenged the above orders through appeal before learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, which were dismissed on 16-7-2013. Both the learned lower courts did not appreciate contention of the petitioner and relied upon the hereditary claim, which has been declared illegal by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioner owns more land than the respondent and he is permanent resident of the said Chak, while respondents Nos.2 and 3 are residing in Faisalabad District. Learned higher courts of the country have declared that a lady can only be appointed Lambardar in the exceptional circumstances e.g. If the lady is the sole owner of the entire revenue estate and no other male candidate was in the field. The petitioner is more influential than the respondent as 15 candidates withdrew their applications in favour of petitioner.
The observation of learned lower courts that the petitioner is not owner of land in the said Chak is the result of misreading of the record. According to the Jamabandi 2010-11, the petitioner is recorded as owner against khata No.40/39. The petitioner is young energetic, who enjoys goodreputation in the locality. The petitioner is social worker and has recently gifted 4 kanals of land for construction of road. TL,, petitioner is middle pass while respondents Nos.2 and 3 are illiterate, therefore, they are unable to perform duties of. Lambardar. Lastly, it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners of ROR No.2200 of 2013 (Muhammad Riaz) contended that learned District Collector, Vehari and learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, did not apply their independent judicial mind. Both the learned lower courts appointed the respondent Sahab Bibi without considering true facts of the case. The respondent being female is not in a position to perform duties of Lambardar. The petitioner is owner of 12-kanals, 17-marlas of land, which is sufficient to meet the requirements of Zar-e-Bhart. The petitioner is primary pass and belongs to Rajput community, which is in majority. The petitioner is well reputed and is social worker. While concluding the arguments, it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.
5. Learned counsel for respondent Sahab Bibi argued that she is permanently residing in Chak No.16/WB and owner of 38-kanals, 11-marlas. The land is sufficient to meet the requirements of Zar- eBhart. She is not defaulter of any government dues. The respondent is enjoying good repute.
Tanvir Ahmed petitioner of ROR No.1847 of 2013 was defaulter of government dues/abiana to the tune of Rs.13,868. The respondent is widow of the deceased Lambardar, who performed official duties to the entire satisfaction of revenue authorities. There is no hitch or bar under the law for appointment of female Lambardar. Reliance was placed on 2005 CLC 1899, PLD 1993 Lahore 423, 1993 CLC 858. The revenue field staff recommended name of respondent Sahab Bibi for appointment of Lambardar. The instant revision petition has been filed against the concurrent, well-reasoned and justified orders passed by learned lower courts after hearing contention of the parties. No irregularity or illegality has been committed in the same. Finally, it was prayed that the revision petitions may be dismissed.
6. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available in the case filed including the impugned orders. Brief of the matter is that Zulfiqar Ali, husband of the respondent was permanent Lambardar of Chak No.16/WB, who died on 23-12-2011.
Thereafter, applications were called for appointment of successor Lambardar. Learned District Collector, appointed respondent Sahab Bibi as Lambardar vide order dated 12-12-2012. The operative part is as under:--- "I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel of all the candidates and perused the file. I have gone through the merits and demerits of each and every candidate and perused the documents produced by them in support of their versions. As per report of the Assistant Commissioner, Vehari, there are three posts of Lambardari i.e. For Rajput Kharal, Rajput Garwah and Jat. Tanwari and Dhall Bachh is delivered as such since 1962. The deceased Lambardar Zulfiqar Ali was belonging to Rajput Kharal community as such now the appointment of a permanent Lambardar is to be made from patti of Rajput Kharal. The candidate Tanveer Akhtar hails from Arain family whereas the remaining three candidates are hailing from Rajput Kharal and land of the candidate Tanveer Akhter' is not situated in the disputed Patti of Rajput Kharal, hence, he is not eligible for appointment as a Lambardar. The objection on Pattis and preparation of merit list was disposed of by this court vide order dated 2-10-2012 and appeal of the candidate Tanveer Akhtar was dismissed in limine by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, camp at Vehari vide order dated 16-10-2012. So far as the remaining candidates is concerned, Imtiaz Hussain is an owner of land measuring 30 Kanals, 15 Marlas and Muhammad Riaz is an owner of land measuring 12 Kanlas 17 Marlas whereas Sahib Bibi is an owner of land measuring 38 Kanals, 11 Marlas as such she has an edge over them with regard to private owned land. Moreover, the Tehsildar and Assistant Commissioner also recommended the name of Sahib Bibi for her appointment as a Lambardar. The candidate Sahib Bibi is a widow of the deceased Lambardar and is an owner of land measuring 38 Kanals, 11 Marlas which is sufficient for the payment of Zar-e-Bhart. She has sufficient awareness of Lambardari affairs and assured to remain within the confines and chrysalis of Lambardari Rules/ Regulations. She has hereditary claim under Rule 17 of land Revenue Rules and comparatively, she is the most suitable, person who also fulfils the basic conditions of Rule 17(c) of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968 i.e. Ability and freedom for indebtedness. Therefore, Mst. Sahib Bibi widow of Zulfiqar Ali, caste Rajput Kharal is hereby appointed as a permanent Lambardar of Chak No.16/WB, Tehsil and District Vehari against a vacant post."
7. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the present petitioners filed appeals before learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, which were dismissed vide order dated 16-7- 2013. The operative part is as under:--- "I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel of both the parties and perused the documents produced by them in support of their versions and also examined the record file of lower court. It is established from the record that there are three posts of Lambardar i.e. For Rajput Kharal, Rajput Garwah and Jat Janwari and Dhall Bachh is delivered as such since 1962. The deceased Lambardar Zulfiqar Ali was belonging to Rajput Kharal community as such now the appointment of a permanent Lambardar was to be made from Patti of Rajput Kharal. The appellant Tanvir Akhtar hails from Arain family whereas the respondent is hailing from Rajput Kharal. Similarly, land of the appellant Tanveer Akhtar is not situated in a disputed Patti of Rajput Kharal, hence, he is not an eligible person for appointment as a Lambardar against the disputed Patti. The objection regarding Pattis and preparation of merit list was, disposed of by the District Collector, Vehari vide order dated 2-10-2012 and appeal of the appellant Tanveer Akhtar was also dismissed in limine by this court vide order dated 16-10-2012. So far as the remaining appellants is concerned, Imtiaz Hussain is an owner of land measuring 30 Kanals, 15 Marlas and Muhammad Riaz is an owner of land measuring 12 Kanals, 17 marlas whereas the respondent Sahib Bibi is an owner of land measuring 38 Kanals, 11 Marlas as such she has an edge over them with regard to private owned land. The respondent Sahib Bibi is a widow of the deceased lambardar and is an owner of land measuring 38 Kanals, 11 Marlas which is sufficient for payment of Zar-e-Bhart. She has sufficient awareness of Lambardari affairs and assured to remain within the confines and chrysalis of Lambardari Rules/ Regulations. She has hereditary claim under Rule 17 of Land Revenue Rules and comparatively, she is the most suitable person who also fulfils the basic conditions of Rule 17(c) of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968 i.e. Ability and freedom for indebtedness. Moreover, the Tehsildar and Assistant Commissioner also recommended the name of respondent Sahib Bibi for her appointment and the recommendation of a candidate by the Revenue Staff carries weight as it is the Field Staff which has direct concern with village and affairs of Lambardari. The learned counsel for the appellants failed to point out any solid ground which may disqualify the respondent to the post of a Lambardar. There is no hitch for appointment of woman as a lambardar as held by the superior courts and Member Board of Revenue's 2011 decision in favour of female candidate.
The District Collector, Vehari appointed the respondent Sahib Bibi widow of the deceased Lambardar Zulfiqar Ali as a Lambardar of Chak No.16/WB, Vehari with full justification on merits andin accordance with the law. The appointment made by Collector should not be ordinarily interfered with unless there is very serious irregularity, injustice or perverseness in Collector's order.
Under these circumstances, I find no solid ground to interfere with the impugned order which is upheld and all the three appeals having no legal force are hereby dismissed."
8. The perusal of operative parts of both the above orders shows that learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, has almost failed to apply his independent mind and restricted himself to reproduce ditto about 90% of the operative part of order passed by learned District Collector in operative part of order passed by him with the only addition to referring a judgment of this court where appointment of a lady as Lambardar has been endorsed. It further appeared that Tanveer Akhtar, the present petitioner of ROR No.1847 of 2013 has been ousted on the ground that he is not owner of any land in the concerned patti. In rebuttal of such finding, the petitioner produced copy of jamabandi for year 2010-11, which shows that the petitioner is owner of land measuring OK-17M in the concerned patti. The petitioner of ROR No.2200 of 2013 (Muhammad Riaz Ahmed) has been ousted on the ground that he is owning less property as compared to respondent (Sahib Bibi). During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, Tanveer Akhtar of ROR No.1847 of 2013 referred to law framed by august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case PLD 1999 Supreme Court 484. Perusal of such judgment showed that Rule 19, which reads as under has been endorsed vide such judgment:--- "A female is not ordinarily eligible for appointment to the office of a headman, but may be appointed, when she is the sole owner of the estate for which the appointment has to be made, or for special reasons."
9. In current scenario, there are no special reasons to- appoint a lady as Lambardar. Whereas, other eligible candidates are available. It also appeared that present petitioner of ROR No.2200 of 2013 namely Muhammad Riaz Ahmed is an absentee, because he resides in Faisalabad as per address given in his CHIC. Hence, he is ineligible to be appointed as Lambardar being absentee Reliance is placed upon 1996 SCMR 1581.
"A person may well be a permanent resident, of a village or a Chak fOr which a Lambardar is to be appointed but if he is doing his business on some other job elsewhere and also normally as he will not be available to perform day to day functions / duties attached to office of Lambardar."
10. In 'the light of above discussion, Revision Petition No.1847 of 2013 is accepted and Revision Petition No.2200 of 2013 is dismissed. The impugned order passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, dated 16-7-2013 and order of learned District Collector, Vehari, dated 12-12-2012 are set aside and present petitioner of ROR No.1847 of 2013 namely Tanveer Akhtar son of Muhammad Yaqoob, is appointed as Lambardar of Chak No.16/WB, Tehsil and District Vehari.