I have heard the learned Advocates.
2. This is a revision petition against the order of Additional Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, dated 15-7-1971 whereby he rejected the petitioner's appeal in default, against the Collector's Member order dated 26-6.1971 giving Dhal Bach to respondent for 1971 in respect of village Walgan Jhanda, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura.
3. The facts appear to be that the petitioner was a Lambardar of this village. On the basis of a report by Tehsildar the Collector by his order dated 28-6-1971 directed that the Dhal Bach for Rabi 1971 should be given to respondent who would pay Rs, 10,000 in advance and a personal surety should be taken from him for the balance.
4. The petitioner appealed to the Additional Commissioner and did not appear despite the fact that he was called twice. It was found that as per reports of the lower Courts the petitioner was habitual defaulter and quite a big amount was due from him. His appeal was dismissed on 15-7- 1971. Hence this revision.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the post of a Lambardar is an office and the Dhal Bach could not be taken away from him unless he was duly charge-sheeted and proceeded against under the rules. The learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to rebut the petitioner's contention.
6. I have gone through the record and the above discussion. I am of the view that Lambardar holds an office and one of his functions, according to rules, is collection of land revenue. This function cannot be taken away from him without suspending or dismissing him. Accordingly, in the absence of his suspension or dismissal, the Dhal Bach could not have been taken away from him. I, therefore, accept the revision and set aside the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner.
However, it is open to the Collector to suspend or dismiss the Lambardar after following the proper procedure.