' Brief facts of the cases are that on the death of Abdul Hameed temporary Lambardar of Chak No,5/TDA, Tehsil and District Khushab fresh applications were invited to fill in the resultant vacancy.
The Collector vide order dated 30-1-1989 appointed Akbar All as Lambardar of the Chak. The petitioners, challenged that order before the Commissioner who vide his order dated 8-4-1989 remanded the cases with the observation that it was not clear whether the appointment of the respondent was made as a temporary Lambardar or. Permanent Lambardar. On remand, the DC/Collector vide his order dated 21-8-1989 held that the appointment is permanent and again appointed Akbar All as permanent Lambardar. The petitioners, went in appeals before the Commissioner who vide impugned order dated 15-10-1989 upheld the order of the Collector. Hence these revision petitions under section 164 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967.
2. This single order shall dispose of these two revision petitions as the cases are interconnected.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Abdul Ghafoor contended that Abdul Hameed deceased temporary Lambardar was appointed on the sole ground of belonging to the majority community i,e, Rajput. However, the present case falls under rule 17 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968. The DC/Collector appointed Akbar All who is trom minority community of Jat. The vital point involved in this case is that the Lambardar should be from the majority community. The learned counsel referred to the MBR(R)'s order dated 14-4-1981, in which it was held that the appointment of Lambardar is based on the strength of the whole community. Since the Rajputs are in majority and they also own more land their claim cannot be ignored whereas the respondent who belongs to the minority community cannot be appointed Lambardar. According to the learned counsel there are 54 Rajput families against three Jat families. The Rajput community is larger both in number and in property. The petitioner is literate whereas the respondent cannot read and write. The petitioner was also recommended for the appointment by lower functionaries. The petitioner owns 147K-18M of land which is sufficient security. He is also a Member of the Usher and Zakat Committee which is indicative of his influence. The learned counsel relied on PLD 1966 Rev. 155 and PLD 1960 Rev. 54 and prayed for acceptance of the revision petition and appointment of Abdul Ghafoor as Lambardar.
4. The learned counsel for Muhammad Khan petitioner raised a question whether it would be feasible to create two posts of Lambardar instead of one. He further argued that the respondent is a debtor of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (ADBP) and had on the tractor. He is a local councillor but is uneducated. On the other hand the petitioner is an educated pers,on upto the middle level and belongs to second most numerous community, Utra.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent maintained in rebuttal that the case admittedly falls under rule 17 of the Rules ibid which is to be read with the preamble of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. In the firs,t appointment an effective pers,on is to be appointed who can achieve objectives of the law. The revenue estates falls in the colony area of Thal Development Authority and comprises of refugees from the East Punjab. A Lambardar has thus to be from the refugees. No reliance can be placed on the castes and the inhabitants as many pers,ons have changed their castes. Rajputs are not a compact community because they have migrated from several places. 27 pers,ons had withdrawn in favour of the respondent which is suggestive of his influence. The learned counsel referred to the Collector's as well as the Commissioner's orders, and said that only two instalments of tractor loan of ADBP were left. The respondent bad rendered meritorious service and built a school on self-help basis. The oancwrent findings are in favour of the respondent. There is only one ward in the revenue estate which cosnists of 795 acres and the demand is Rs,20,000 and therefore two Lambardars, need not be appointed. It was prayed that the revision may be dismissed. The respondent placed on record an affidavit from one Muhammad Shabbir claiming to be related to Abdul Ghafoor ad assailing his character.
6. The learned counsel for petitioner Muhammad Khan subsequently placed on record a copy of Mutation No,143 and of record-of-rights 1987-88 in support of his contention that the area of the revenue estate is one thousand acres and therefore the other post of Lambardari should be created.
7. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record as well as the record of the Courts below. The number of community according to Islaqsha No,1 of this revenue estate is as follows:-{{TABLE}} 511AZ Cam, Number/I:mimed, Rajputs. 54 210 Utra. 33 43 Arains. 28 150 Pathans. 12 57 Jats. 3 60 ' Thus the Rajput community is clearly the most numerous in terms of number and owners,hip. The Colony Naib-Tehsilda: recommended petitioner Abdul Ghafoor for appointment as Lambardar which was endors,ed by the Tehsildar and A.C./Collector. The consideration which seems to have weighed with the learned DC/Collector is that the majority of the inhabitants was with the respondent. However, he did not touch upon the point of majority community in his order. The case was remanded by the Commissioner vide his order dated 8-4-1989 for consideration whether the appointment was temporary or permanent. The Collector held that this is a firs,t appointment of the permanent Lambardar, Again the Collector appointed Akbar Ali on the basis of the support of more people in the village vide his order dated 21-8-1989. The Commissioner also held that Akbar Ali respondent enjoys the support of other communities in the village and even certain Rajput families. The claim of the majority community was therefore not considered at all. The determination of importance of the community from which selection of a Lambardar is to be made is one of the fundamental matters, in making firs,t appointment. Admittedly the Rajput community is the most numerous and this was the core of my learned predecessor's order dated 14-4-1981 by which Abdul Hameed (now deceased) was appointed as the Lambardar of this revenue estate.
This finding of the Board of Revenue on this point could not have been brushed aside by the lower Revenue Officers,. It has also been laid down in the rules that elections shall not be resorted to in any case and therefore the appointment of Councillor as Lambardar cannot be favoured unless such a Councillor mebts the criteria laid down in the rules. If the argument advanced by the learned Commissioner regarding the "extent of....Influence and effectiveness" of the respondent as a local Councillor is accepted then its logical result would be appointment of all Councillors, as Lambardars,. The latter have inter alia to perform certain functions such as collection of demand and reporting of crime to the police and their selection on the basis of their political influence may not be conducive to the effective discharge of these functions. It is also in administrative interest not to combine both these offices in single individual, as far as'possible and of cours,e subject to the rules, so that more than one functionary is available to the public for purpose of identification etc before Revenue Officers,. The Lard of Revenue consistently favoured appointment of Lambardar from the majority community, subject to the rules, and no deviation from this time honoured practice in our socioeconomic set up at the present stage of social evolution seems to be necessary or even required.
8. The material brought on record by the parties in the revisional stage such as the affidavit of Muhammad Shabir or the case for appointment of two Lambardars, should have been produced before or should be addressed now to the competent Revenue Officers, for their consideration as it cannot be entertained at the revisional stage.
9. Although the law and the rules do not refer to the recommendations of the lower revenue functionaries for appointment of a Lambardar, yet the due or relative importance of such recommendation, especially if they be unanimous from the Patwari to the AC/Collector, as is the present case, should not be ignored because they particularly from the Patwari to Tehsildar, are the functionaries who work with a Lambardar and are thus in a position to comment on the prospective effectiveness and usefulness of a candidate. Although the Collector has the discretion not to accept such recommendation but the reasons for non-acceptance thereof should be given in the order.
10. From the foregoing discussion it is evident that due regard to the rules and the case-law has not been paid while making the impugned orders, which cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. Abdul Ghafoor petitioner is clearly from the majority community and does not suffer from any disability, His revision petition is therefore accepted and he is appointed Lambardar of this revenue estate. The revision petition of Muhammad Khan fails and is accordingly dismissed.
11. Before parting with the case I would like to observe that to obtain loan from ADBP for agricultural machinery or for development of the land is not a disqualification as held by me in R.O.Rs, Nos.1814/1987, 1820/1987 and 2010/1987 titled Rana Nazir Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Siddique and Bashir Ahmad v. State/Sardar Muhammad and this factor cannot operate against such a loanee unless he has pers,istently defaulted in payment of instalments.
Order accodingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.