The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6-4-1985 of Commissioner, Bahawalpur whereby his appeal was dismissed.
2. Briefly, stated the facts are that the petitioner applied to the AC/Collector to appoint him as a permanent Lambarder of Chak No.116/IL, Tehsil Khanpur in place of respondent temporary Lambardar. The request of the petitioner was turned down by the AC/Collector on 10-1-1985 on the plea that more than 50% of the land was under instalments, therefore, existing arrangements would prevail. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Commissioner but failed vide impugned order. Hence this petition.
3. I have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the total land of the Chak was 703 acres, 7 kanals and 13 marlas out of which the land owners of 189 acres 6 kanals and 8 marlas had obtained proprietary rights that land-owners of 288 acres 1 kanal and 5 marlas had also deposited their full instalments and, therefore, more than 50% land-owners had got their proprietary rights but the Courts below did not appreciate this point. The Courts below also misinterpreted the relevant law on the subject. The petitioner is more educated than the respondent, and therefore, the petitioner's application before the AC/Collector for permanent Lambardar should have been accepted.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the orders of Courts below and has stated that in the circumstances of the case, there was hardly any need for the post of permanent Lambardar in the Chak.
5.I have considered the arguments and have examined the orders of the Courts below. It is evident from the record that the estate consists of 740 acres of land. Out of it 538 acres of land is yet owned by the Government meaning thereby majority of land-owners had not yet acquired the proprietary rights. Mere A payment of instalments by some of them will not serve the purpose until conveyance deeds are executed in all such cases. In view of this position it is established that the proprietary land of this Chak is still less than 50% of the total land in view of the above. I see no justification to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.