1. SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J.-The petitioner whose appointment as a Lambardar of the village was ultimately set aside, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 24-10-1981 whereby his appeal against the concurrent judgment and decree of the two Courts below against the resumption of the Lambardari grant, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was appointed a permanent Lambardar and when required by the Collector deposited the price of the Lambardari square allotted to him in his capacity as a Lambardar. The appointment was contested by Muhammad Siddique, respondent No. 2, who in the second round of litigation ultimately succeeded in January 1962. The lambardari square was con--sequently resumed from the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this measure by instituting a civil suit which was dismissed. His first appeal also failed and so was his second appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as soon as the price of the lambardari square was deposited, the petitioner became owner of the land and notwithstanding the fate of lambardari he was entitled to protect the grant as a Lambardar.
4. The very conditions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, go against him. Condition No. 2 in the instructions issued in 1954 (found at page 632 of the Colony Manual published by Khyber Law Times 1981 shows that pending final adjudication on the question of lambardari, the price of the lambardari grant received by the Collector was to be kept in suspense account. It was to be credited towards the price of the land only, after the litigation is over and the appointment of the Lambardar itself reached finality. This condition, in fact, incorporates the principle of lis pendens. As the appointment of the petitioner as a Lambardar itself did not finally mature and the amount remained in suspense account, it could not be credited towards the price of the lambardari grant nor could he by such deposit acquire any vested right in the land itself. We find that the courts have decided the question in accordance with the law applicable and the leave to appeal is refused.