M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.--This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 16-5-1983 dismissing the appellant's writ petition concerning the creation of and appointment of the appellant thereto, a second post of Lambardar in Chak No. 132/9-L, Tehsil and District Sahiwal.
2. The said second post had been created by the Additional Commissioner, Multan, on 16-5-1967 on the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal, whereafter the Deputy Commissioner had, by order, dated 26-6-1967, appointed the appellant to the post. However, on appeal by Ghulam Haider respondent No. 3, a right-holder in the village, the Commissioner, Multan Division, vide order, dated 23-1-1968, held that according to the distribution of duties, the Lambardari cases were to be dealt With by the Commissioner and not by the Additional Commissioner. He, therefore, "reviewed" the order, dated 16-5-1967 and decided 'that he would take up the Deputy Commissioner---s proposal de novo. This order was maintained by a learned Member, Board of Revenue, on 3-7-1969, Who rejected the appellant's revision. Aggrieved, the 'appellant invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The view taken that Lambardari cases, according to the prevalent distribution of work, were to be handled by the Commissioner alone and not by the Additional Commissioner, prevaile8 also with the High Court and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed on 16-5-1983.
3. Leave to appeal was granted to consider, inter alia, whether the "Additional Commissioner was competent to create a second post of a Lambardar in an estate when, under the orders pertaining to distribution of work Lamberdari cases were to be dealt with by the 'Commissioner' ."
4. Both parties, namely, Mufti Zisul Hasan appellant and Ghulam Haider, respondent No. 3, have since died and are represented by their legal heirs. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that notwithstanding the death of Mufti Zisul Hasan, if his appointment as Lambardar be restored, his heirs would be entitled, in terms of para. 618 of the Colony Manual to "due weight to hereditary claims" and that even otherwise, the heirs have acquired pecuniary interest by the grant of land in favour of the deceased appellant, which though made under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme and initially for a period of 10 years, is still intact and is presently protected under the instructions of the Board of Revenue contained in letters, dated 7-8-1976 and 5-12-1979. By the first letter the Board decided that "any type of grant made to a Lambardar should not be resumed till further orders". By the second letter the Board clarified that "in case of death of an issueless grantee Lambardar (as it is stated to be in the present case), his successor-in-interest who is duly appointed as Lambardar, may, subject to observance of conditions, continue to hold the grant till further orders". Learned counsel, therefore, urges that the legal heirs of Mufti Ziaul Hasan, notwithstanding his death are entitled to pursue the matter. Be that as it may, we need not go into this aspect of the matter because no such controversy had arisen before the High Court though Mufti Ziaul Hasan had died on 20-2-1983, that is, during the pendency of the writ petition.
5. According to Notification No. LR-31/15-60, dated 6-10-1960, issued by the Governor of West Pakistan, under the Land Revenue Act, 1887, an Additional Commissioner shall "subject to the control of the Commissioner of the Division, exercise within the local limits of his jurisdiction and during the period he holds such post all the powers of the Commissioner under the said Act" We have, therefore, to fall back on the distribution of work between the Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner existing at the relevant the in order to examine the competency of the order of the Additional Commissioner, dated 16-5-1967. There is, at page 48 of the paper-book, a copy of letter, dated 30-4-1969, from the Commissioner addressed to the Board of Revenue, forwarding therewith an extract from the list of distribution of work between the Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) which had been approved in the year 1961 but had been in force until then without any subsequent material change in it. This distribution of work, which was thus in force at the relevant the, divides the work in to broad categories (i) Court Work and (ii)
Colony and Revenue Work. Under 'Court Work', Lambardari appeals were excluded from the duties of the Additional Commissioner but this is not relevant because the order subject of our examination was not made in a Lambardari appeal. Under 'Colony and Revenue Work', the functions of the Commissioner under the Tenancy and Land Revenue Acts which included: "(i) Statement (D-I and D-1I) of fluctuating land revenue.
(ii) Suspension, remission and collection of land revenue.
(i.e) Land Revenue Administration report of the Division.
(iv) Sale of immovable property for the recovery of Government dues under section 77(i) of the Land Revenue Act.
(v) Writing of cases of cash rent." fell under the duties to be performed by the Additional Commissioner. As the matter of creating an additional post of Lambardar comes under section 28 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, this duty, therefore, clearly fell within the functions delegated to the Additional Commissioner under the distribution of work in force at the relevant the. There are to more lists of distribution of work, one, dated 21-3-1960 (at pages 50-51 of the paper-book) containing instructions of the Board of Revenue, and the other, dated 18-1-1965 (at pages 53, to 56 of the paper-book) but none of them shows that Lambardari matters except Lambardari appeals had to be placed before the Commissioner. There are to more lists, one at page 57 and the other at pages 58-59 but there is nothing to show that they were in force at the relevant the. Although the question whether the matter fell within the duties to be performed by the Additional Commissioner is one of fact but it appears that the finding reached thereon is not in accord with the relevant material and is, therefore, liable to interference.
6. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court, dated 16-5-1983, the Board of Revenue, dated 3-7-1969 and the Commissioner, dated 23-1-1968 and maintain that of the Additional Commissioner, dated 16-5-1967. There shall be no order as to costs.