' Brief facts of the case are that on the death of Walia Lambardar of village Uthwal Khalsa, Tehsil Okara, fresh applications were invited to fill in the resultant vacancy. Seven persons applied for the post but later on the petitioner who is son of the deceased Lambardar and the respondent were left in the field. The Assistant Commissioner/Collector on 1-12-1985 after considering the merits/demerits of each candidate appointed the respondent as new Lambardar. The petitioner challenged that order before the Additional Commissioner who vide his order dated 9-4-1987 remanded the case for fresh decision. On remand,. The District Collector ignored the petitioner inter alia on the ground that he was defaulter and vide his order dated 5-6-1988 appointed the respondent as a Lambardar. The petitioner went in appeal before the Commissioner who vide his order dated 17-1-1989 upheld the order of the District Collector on the ground that rule 19(2) of Land Revenue. Rules; 1968 is a directory in its character and not mandatory 1982 SCMR 2027 Hence this revision petition under section 164 of Land Revenue Act, 1967.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not attend the Court after admission of the case on and since 5-3-1990 and last opportunity was given on 3-2-1991 when the case was adjourned to 19-5-1991. On the latter date the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to file written arguments within 15 days, the learned counsel for 'the respondent having been heard. However, the petitioner did' not comply with the order of the Court and did not do anything till the announcement of the order i,e. 14-7-1991. The case was 'therefore taken up on its merits as they stand in the revision petition.
3. The main grounds taken by the petitioner are that he was not a defaulter and was not confined in 'the judicial lock-up for 10-12 days for the non-payment of the arrears. He had paid all the land revenue regularly and that his financial position was not weak. He was owner of 69 Kanals of land and was 'the son of the deceased Lambardar. His case falls under Rule 19(2) and even if it is considered that his father was of doubtful antecedents, the hereditary claim would outweigh the claim of the other party, i,e. The respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent referred to the orders of the Commissioner and the Collector/Deputy Commissioner and maintained that since the petitioner as well as his father were defaulters, therefore, the petitioner was validly ignored by the Collector .As well as the Commissioner and the revision petition merited dismissal.
5. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. The petitioner has himself admitted in ground (b) of the grounds taken in the memorandum of revision petition that his father was a defaulter but the petitioner had paid the arrears due from his father. However, due to short payment he remained in civil lock-up for 2-3 days and after that he paid all the arrears due from his father. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the land owned by the petitioner has .Been eroded by the river and he is thus of weak financial position. It' was held by the Commissioner that, a substantial portion of the land owned by the petitioner falls within the river bed as is evident from Dhalbacch for Kharif 1988. He was paying only Rs,14'as land revenue and thus his landed property cannot meet the Zar-e-Bhart.
6. There is no doubt that hereditary claim cannot be ignored under Rule 19(2) of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968, in proprietary estates other things being equal. However, in the case of dismissal of a Headman under Rule 18, the Collector is duly authorised under clause (b) of sub-rule. (2) of Rule 19 to refuse to appoint any of his heirs for the reasons stated in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) ibid. In the present case the petitioner's father had not been dismissed but only suspended. The case thus would be covered by Rule 19(2)(c) which authorizes the Collector to refuse to appoint a person claiming to be a heir on any ground which would necessitate or justify the dismissal of that person from the office of the Headman. In the instant case, due to weak financial position of the petitioner duly substantiated by the admitted fact of his having been confined to civil lock-up for non- payment of arrears of land revenue, the petitioner has been validly excluded from appointment as a Lambardar. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders and dismiss the revision petition.