' The facts relevant for the disposal of these cases are that one Rehmat Ullah Lambardar of Chak No, 61/DB, Tehsil Kalur Kot died. Besides Muhammad Rafiq, the present parties; applied for the said post. A report regarding the merits of all the contesting candidates was called for from Revenue officer who recommended Muhammad Shabbir son of the late Lambardar for the post of Lambardari whereas the AC/Collector appointed the respondent as Lambardar of the Chak. The petitioners filed two separate appeals before the Commissioner but failed. Hence these revision petitions under section 164 of West Pakistan 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 Ch. Masud Ahmad, petitioner, contended that the petitioner was on better footing in every respect than the respondent in so far as he is more educated, has more property, had served the Government for 12 years, had experience of 7 years of working as a temporary Lambardar and has been living in the village all through. There was no complaint against him and the respondent was never recommended by the field staff and was therefore erroneously appointed as a Lambardar
4. The learned counsel for Muhammad Shabbir, petitioner, contended that Muhammad Shabbir was the son of the late Lambardar and mere pendency of proceedings against the father Rehmat Ullah should not have been taken into consideration in rejecting his condidature. The case had not been finally decided against his father and the son could not be penalized for the yet unproven conduct of the father. Further that the respondent had made a statement before the Revenue Authorities that if Mohammad Shabbir were appointed Lambardar then he would withdraw.
Therefore, the revision petition may be accepted and Muhammad Shabbir appointed as a Lambardar.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent maintained that Rehmat Ullah, the deceased Lambardar, was dismissed in 1981 on charges of embezzlement and also for filing suits against the Government. He was subsequently reinstated but again was removed and he died in July 1986. The proceedings for appointment of a new. Lambardar were taken up and the respondent was appointed as a Lambardar. The concurrent findings of the two Courts below were in his favour. It was maintained that Muhammad Shabbir was involved in criminal case, the detail of which was given in para 9 of the impugned order. The rule of primogeniture was not applicable in the instant case as the incumbent Lambardar had been removed from the post of Lambardar. The respondent was the owner of 117 Kanals and his bratheri' was most numerous in the village. The learned counsel relied on PLD 1950 (Pb). Rev. 835 and PLD 1950 Pb. 1158, in support of his case.
6. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. All the points raised and the pleas taken before me were also raised before the learned Commissioner in appeal and have comprehensively been dealt with by him in the impugned order. The learned Commissioner found that Masud Ahmad petitioner belonged to the minority community of Arains who had 33 land- lowners with a total of 390 acres of land; whereas the respondent Inayat Ali belonged to the majority community of Sheikhs having 199 land-owners with 687 acres. Similarly, Muhammad Shabbir was also found to be an unfit person because his father had been removed from the post of the Lambardari and in the words of the Commissioner "he was left with no qualification after the above-mentioned reputation of his deceased father". Muhammad Shabbir himself has been involved in criminal litigation which does not improve upon the qualifications or the reputation left by his late father. The learned counsel for Masud Ahmad petitioner has relied upon the reports of field staff in favour of his client. There is no doubt that the reports of the field staff are of some use in determining the eligibility and qualifications of a candidate but these reports do not bind the Collector to a. Particular candidate as he has to examine the case in its. Entirety, take a deeper look and appoint the most suitable person as Lambardar. I therefore do not see any merit in this contention as well. There is no illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the concurrent findings of the Courts below and both the revision petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Revision .