' Brief facts of the case are that on the death of Ghulam Rasul Lambardar of village Rai Fur, Tehsil Shakargarh, applications were invited to fill in the resultant vacancy. The present parties, besides Ahmad Din, applied for the post. Later on, Ahmad Din withdrew his candidature in favour of the petitioner leaving the present parties in the field. The Collector on 2640-1987 appointed the respondent as Lambardar. The petitioner although the elder son of the deceased Lambardar was ignored on the basis of his absence from the estate. That order was assailed in appeal before the Commissioner but to no avail. Hence this revision petition under section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's father was Lambardar and the vacancy had been caused due to his death. Therefore, the case was covered under Rule 19 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968. The petitioner owned 3 Kanals of land in this revenue estate the value of which was approximately Rs,1,000 whereas the land revenue was Rs,250 approximately. Thus, the value of the land owned by hi '.n was much more than the demand and hence sufficient security was available. The petitioner had further purchased 15 Kanals 17 Marlas of land. Besides, the petitioner also owned land in Faisalabad District. The respondent was involved in several criminal cases and some suits had also been decreed against him. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel relied upon PLD 1959 W.P. (Rev) 91, wherein a candidate with a smaller holding was preferred to one owning a larger holding, but with advers,e Police record and PLD 195 (Sic) (W.P.)
Rev. 128, in which it was held that candidate's property should be sufficient to meet Government's demand. It was further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been living in Faisalabad during his father's lifetime but he had now settled permanently in this revenue estate. The respondent's brother was a Lambardar of adjoining village Thekri and the present Lambardari should not have been given to the respondent.
3. It was maintained by the learned counsel for the respondent that purchase of land by the petitioner was a `Benami' transaction as this land was held previously by his brothers, and mother.
The petitioner's father had also not lived permanently in this village but had instead appointed a Sarbrah to carry out the work of Lambardari. The documents i,e,, affidavits placed by the petitioner on record of this Court were not admissible at the revisional stage. It was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. The case of appointment of subject Lambardari clearly falls under rule 19(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules ibid, as this estate is owned by proprietors,. In this case the petitioner being the nearest eligible heir according to the rule of primogeniture should have been appointed as the deceased Lambardar (father of the petitioner) or the petitioner had not incurred the disqualifications enumerated in clause (b) of that rule. However, the reasons which weighed with the Collector were the petitioner's small holding and absence from the estate. On the other hand the learned Collector preferred Muhammad Shafi over the petitioner on account of his larger holding and acquittal by Court in the police cases pending against him. It has been mentioned in the Collector's order that the petitioner was not a permanent resident of this revenue estate and kept on visiting off and on. However, his father was a Lambardar of this revenue estate and it has not been shown that his father was ever proceeded against or dismissed from the office of the Lambardar for not having satisfactorily performed his duties. It was not necessary for the petitioner to reside in the villave during the lifetime of his father as he had to manage his property elsewhere. However, after the death of his father, he was entitled to be appointed as a Lambardar because his previous absence from the village cannot go against him as it has yet to be seen whether he resides in the village and performs the duties of a Lambardar satisfactorily or not. In case a Lambardar does not live in the village, then action against him can always be taken under Rule 18 of the Rules ibid. 5.
5. A strong hereditary claim cannot and should not be ignored on the basis of prospective conduct of the nearest eligible heir who should be given an 8 opportunity to prove his capabilities by his performance for a period of time as a Lambardar. The extent of holding should also not be given more weight than the fact that it should be sufficient security against the demand of land revenue of that estate, although in cases falling under Rule 17 the extent of holding can also be taken as a measure of a candidate's influence. However, as has been observed earlier, the present case fails under Rule 19 and in the absence of any disqualifications incurred by the father of the petitioner during his lifetime or by the petitioner himself, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed to the office D of the Lambardar. The other points raised by the parties need not be looked into. I therefore accept the revision petition, set aside the order of the learned Collector dated 2640-1987 and of the learned Commissioner dated 6-3-1988 and appoint Khadim Rasul as Lambardar of village Raipur, Tehsil Shakargarh, in place of the deceased Lambardar.