' This single order will dispose of the above-titled two revision petitions as the parties are same and the questions of facts and law are similar. These two revision petitions have been filed against the order, dated 19-4-1987 passed by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the order of AC/Collector, Mankera, dated 26-1-1987 appointing the respondent as permanent Lambardar of Chak No,72/ ML, Tehsil Mankera, District Bhakkar.
2. The counsel for the parties have been heard at length. The counsel for Roshan Din petitioner has contended that the petitioner had been working as Sarbrah with his father since 1953 and he owns 60 kanals of land included in another Chak. He further contended that the petitioner is Middle pass and his father, the previous Lambardar gave statement that the petitioner be appointed in his place. He further contended that the respondent does not bear that much good character as reported by the local police whereas Nizam Din petitioner is an absentee and does not reside in the Chak as is proved by both orders of the lower Courts. He further argued that the petitioner having better qualifications and recommended by the Revenue Officer Halqa is entitled for appointment as Lambardar.
3. The counsel for Nizam Din petitioner has contended that he is the eldest son of ex-Lambardar and worked with his father as Sarbrah in 1944. He further contended that the lower Courts have wrongly held that he is an absentee as according to National Identity Card, he is resident of this.
Chak. He further argued that the petitioner being the eldest son of ex-Lambardar and having better qualifications is, eligible for appointment as Lambardar.
4. The counsel for the respondent has pleaded that both the lower Courts have given verdicts in his favour after discussing the merits and demerits of all the candidates and he does not .Suffer from any disqualification. He further pleaded that report of the local, police does not mention any specific allegation against the respondent, rather the remarks of local police about his being military minded have been appreciated by the learned Commissioner while upholding his appointment as Lambardar.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and gone through the copies of impugned orders. Both the lower Courts have passed their orders after discussing the merits and demerits of each candidate and both the counsel for the petitioners could not point out any disqualification rendering the respondent ineligible for appointment as permanent Lambardar.
However, they have also failed to point out any material illegality or irregularity in the concurrent findings of both the lower Courts and I,' therefore, see no justification to interfere with the same.
Both the revision petitions are dismissed accordingly.