' This first appeal under section 96, C.P.C. Was directed against the judgment dated 20-2-1976 whereby the learned District Judge, Sargodha in appeal against the order rejecting the application for grant of temporary injunction called for the record of the suit and after hearing the parties rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C.
2. The facts necessary for appreciating the submissions of the parties, briefly stated are, that the appellant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was entitled to maintain his possession over the land in question as well as to receive the ownership rights of the land in question which are to be granted to him in his capacity as Sarbrah Lambardar under Pedigree Live-Stock Breeding Scheme. It was averred that the inclusion of the land for disposal through auction was illegal, void and ineffective as against his rights. As a consequential relief permanent injunction restraining the Province of Punjab respondent from interfering in his possession was also prayed for. The appellant had claimed that he was entitled to receive benefit of the instructions issued by the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, on 9-11-1974 under which the dispossession of the lessees under the Scheme who happened to be Lambardars was directed to be held in abeyance.
The learned District Judge was, however, of the view that the suit was barred by section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912 and that the plaintiff could not have approached the Civil Court without first availing the remedy provided under the aforesaid Act.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the security for the mesne profits ordered to be furnished by the first week of January, 1977 has not been deposited and as such the appeal due to this conduct of the appellant merits to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that he was not aware whether the.Security was furnished or not. He added that this objection should have been raised in 1977 or within reasonable time and at this late stage the appeal may not be dismissed on this ground alone.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the land could not have been resumed without hearing the appellant and as such the inclusion of the land for disposal through auction was without jurisdiction and in these circumstances the Civil Court could be approached without availing the remedy provided under the Colonization of Government Land Act 1912. In support of this plea reliance was placed on Abdul Jabbar v. Muhammad Latif and others (1986 CLC 603) and Sardar Muhammad Aslam Sial and 3 others v. Government of Pakistan and 3 others (1985 SCMR 9). This is not a case of resumption.
The land was granted in 1963 admittedly from period of 10 years and lease period thus had expired in 1974. The appellant was claiming benefit of instructions issued by the Member '(Colonies) Board of Revenue dated 9-11-1974 under which the dispossession of lessees under the Pedigree Live Stock Breeding Scheme in his capacity to be Lambardar was held in abeyance. The question requiring consideration are whether a Sarbrah Lambardar can claim grant of the land in his own name independently of the Lambardar whose Sarbrah he is and whether the instructions dated 9-11-1974 apply to Sarbrah Lambardars as well. The view taken by the authorities was that the appellant who was Sarbrah Lambardar did not come within the purview of the aforesaid instruction. It was also urged by the learned counsel for the province of Punjab that the appellant was a Sarbrah of his father who died in the year 1960 and thereafter in March, 1981 the elder brother of the appellant was appointed permanent Lambardar in the vacancy caused due to the death of the father. It was also urged that Lambardar so appointed was granted proprietary rights on other land under the Pedigree Live Stock Breeding Scheme. These facts do not form part of the present record but the fact remains that learned counsel for the appellant was unable to controvert the aforenoted facts.
Be that as it may, even on the present record the appeal is bound to fail as Sarbrah Lambardar has no independent position to claim any right by virtue of appointment as Sarbrah Lambardar.
Reference to Rules 25 and 26 of the Land Revenue Rules 1968 would show that Sarbrah Lambardar is a Substitute of the Lambardar and is so appointed when for reasons given in Rules the Lambardar is not available to discharge the duties of office personally. A Sarbrah Lambardar has no independent office or position. He is a substitute for the original, a -stop-gap arrangement and works for and on behalf of the Lambardar. Para 26 of the Scheme makes the matter further clear by providing that Lambardar includes temporary, or permanent Lambardar. A Substitute or Sarbrah has not been included in the said term. It will, therefore, be seen that the appellant cannot claim benefit of instructions dated 9-11-1974 issued by the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue Punjab. In any case it was not controverted that the appellant ceased to be a Sarbrah Lambardar in the year 1975 when suit was filed. This being the situation the appellant did not have maintained the suit or claimed any right as Sarbrah Lambardar. For all these reasons the appellant had no cause of action and the plaint was, therefore, rightly rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.