' The facts of these cases, in brief, are that Hakim Ali, present respondent No,1, applied for the creation of an additional Patti of Lambardar in Chak No,142/10-R, Tehsil and District Khanewal, on account of difficulties faced by the Patti due to absence of petitioner Nisar Ahmad from the estate.
The District Collector, Multan after obtaining report from the Revenue field staff issued repeated notices to Nisar Ahmad Khan permanent Lambardar of the Chak who did not turn up and thus the District Collector, Multan, vide his order dated 20-8-1984 removed him from the office of Lambardar, and in order to fill in the resultant vacancy the Assistant Commissioner/Collector Khanewal was directed to invite fresh applications. Eight candidates applied for the post. The AC/Collector after observing necessary formalities vide his order dated 12-11-1984, appointed Hakim Ali, respondent No,1, as Lambardar of the Chak. Aggrieved with the said order Nisar Ahmad Khan filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Multan, challenging the orders of the District Collector dated 20-8-1984 and the AC/Collector dated 12-11-1984.
2. Ahmad Din, unsuccessful candidate, petitioner also challenged the order of the AC/Collector Khanewal dated 12-11-1984 before the Commissioner, Multan Division. Both the appeals were dismissed vide impugned order dated 24-7-1989. Hence these revision petitions.
3. Since the subject-matter is common, these petitions are being taken up together and will be disposed of by this single order.
4. The learned counsel for Nisar Ahmad Khan petitioner stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Lambardar in 1965 and had continuously held that position ever since. Prior to his appointment as Lambardar, the petitioner's father was also a Lambardar. On 28th July, 1982, Hakim All respondent, applied to the Collector for creation of an additional post of Lambardar; thus it was a hereditary office. Instead of creating an additional post of Lambardar the District Collector dismissed the petitioner from the post of Lambardar on 20-8-1984 and asked for fresh applications to fill in the resultant vacancy. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner vide his impugned order. The learned counsel asserted that a hereditary Lambardar could not be removed from his office when there was no complaint against him. In this connection he cited Rule 18 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968. The Collector could have appointed a Sarbrah Lambardar when a Lambardar is unable to discharge his duties due to his absence and in this connection reliance was placed on PLD 1950 Punjab (Rev.) 1009. The petitioner had applied for appointment of a 'Sarbrah' Lambardar in 1983, but no decision was taken on that application. The learned counsel stressed that application for appointment of `Sarbrah' was not necessary and the Collector could have made substitute arrangements.
5. The learned counsel for Ahmad Din petitioner maintained that Nisar Ahmad Khan petitioner had rightly been removed from the office of Lambardar. Citing 1985 CLC 2973, the learned counsel stated that the presence of an applicant was necessary in the revenue estate for appointment as a Lambardar. Nisar Ahmad's appeal before Commisisoner was defective and it was directed against two orders of the Collector, i,e, 28-8-1984 and 12-11-1984. Assailing the appointment of Hakim Ali respondent, it was stated that no proclamation was made in the estate when the applications were invited to fill up the post of Lambardar as a result of Nisar Ahmad's removal. All proceedings were kept very secret. The 'Jae community was in majority to which Ahmad Din petitioner belonged and he owned 139 Kanals 3 Marlas as against Hakim Ali respondent's 20 Kanals. He was also educated up to the Middle Standard. The Commissioner had not decided the case on merits which was not even discussed in the impugned order. Relying on PLD 1967 Dacca 591, the learned counsel maintained that when the case is not decided on merits, remand becomes inevitable.
6. It was argued on behalf of Hakim Ali respondent that a sufficient number of Headmen should be appointed for every revenue estate. Chak No,142/10 R comprised of more than 1,500 acres and one Lambardar was insufficient to discharge the duties of the Headmen and thus the land owners and the general public of the revenue estate were put to a lot of difficulties due to absence of Nisar Ahmad petitioner and this is why he had applied for creation of an additional post of Lambardar.
Nisar Ahmad Khan was permanently absent from the revenue estate for which permission of the Collector was necessary but had not been obtained by Nisar Ahmad petitioner. A large number of notices were issued to Nisar Ahmad but he did not appear before any Revenue Officer at any stage and thus he was validly dismissed as he was unable to discharge the duties of a Lambardar satisfactorily.
7. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record as well as the record of the lower Courts. A perusal of Hakim Ali's application dated 28-7-1982 shows that the main reason advanced for appointment of Hakim Ali as Lambardar was that Nisar Ahmad did not reside in the village being a Government servant and the public was being put to great inconvenience. The relevant portion of his application reads as under:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The District Collector thereupon proceeded to obtain a report from the Assistant Commissioner, Khanewal, which disclosed that Nisar Ahmad Khan, permanent Lambardar of Chak No,142/10-R, was a Government servant and did not reside in the village. He was summoned to appear before the concerned Revenue Officers but his presence could not be procured despite issuance of repeated notices. The Collector also summoned Nisar Ahmad Khan repeatedly but all the notices were received unserved. The District Collector, therefore, dismissed Nisar Ahmad Khan from the post of Lambardar. The order has ostensibly been passed under Rule 18(2)(c) & (f) of W.P. Land Revenue Rules, 1968. The examination of the case record shows that ample opportunity was provided to Nisar Ahmad Khan to be present before various Revenue functionaries, but fie did not do so. It is rather significant to note that none of the Revenue Officers from Naib Tchsildar to Commissioner was able to secure the presence of Nisar Ahmad Khan over a period of seven years and that fact by itself is an eloquent comment on the availability of Nisar Ahmad Khan to the general public in the revenue estate concerned.
8. As regards Nisar Ahmad's contention that it was incumbent upon the Collector to appoint a `Sarbrah' Lambardar under Rule 26, it may be observed that neither did he obtain permission of the Collector under Rule 26(1) of the Rules ibid, for being absent nor did he notify the Collector of his absence and indeed he did not respond to various notices to be present before him to defend his case. It has been argued before me that Nisar Ahmad had been performing the duties of the Headman satisfactorily and he was not accused of any default in the collection of the land revenue and other Government dues. However, the duties of a Headman or Lambardar are not confined to the collection of revenue only; these are enumerated in Rule 20, which are at least 12 in number. No doubt the collection of land revenue and other Government dues is one of the most important functions of a Lambardar, but. a Lambardar is also required to perform many more duties, which Nisar Ahmad as absentee could not do. He had not even applied for appointment of a `Sarbrah' for 18 years since his appointment as a Lambardar in 1965. His application for the appointment of a `Sarbrah' dated 24-3-1983, appears to have been a belated effort to take pre- emptive action on the application of Hakim Ali. However, his signatures on the photo-copy of this application borne on the case record and on the affidavits and various other applications including the revision petition before me, arc different and he certainly did not appear in person before the Tehsildar Khanewal while making the application who summoned him for 4-41983, as can be seen from the order dated 24-3-1983 on this application. In any case, Nisar Ahmad Khan could have ensured the appointment of a `Sarbrah' in good time and not as an afterthought or as a pre-emptive measure. The Collector cannot be expected to make substitute arrangements under Rule 26 unless absence from the revenue estate is notified by the incumbent Lambardar, besides seeking permission from the Collector, which was not done in the instant case. Nisar Ahmad Khan also did not appear before the Commissioner, as can be seen from the, impugned order, to persue his appeal despite the Commissioner's order dated 21-4-1985 to that effect. It was suggested during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for Nisar Ahmad Khan that even if a `Sarbrah' had not been appointed, the village Councillor could attend to multifarious duties such as' identification etc., and relieve public complaints. There may be an element of substance in this argument but local Councillors are elected, and perform their functions, under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, while the Lambardars are appointed, and their duties are prescribed in the Rules framed, under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, and are accountable to the Revenue hierarchy. Both the offices are different and distinct from each other in so far as their duties and functions are concerned and are mutually exclusive and cannot replace each other.
9. Mr. Nisar Ahmad Khan is stated to be a Senior Police Officers posted at Rawalpindi and his duties seem to prevent him from visiting the revenue estate or even to attend the Courts to defend his own interest. This being so, he is certainly unable to perform the duties of a Headman as per Rule 22 of the Rules ibid, and thus he was correctly removed (dismissed) from the office of the Lambardar by the Collector. In one appeal before the Commissioner he challenged two orders of the Collector dated 20-8-1984 and 12-11-1984 which was technically not correct. His appeal was rightly dismissed by the Commissioner. The orders of the Courts below are unexceptionable and his revision petition (R.O.R. No,1177 of 1989) is dismissed.
10. As regards R.O.R. No,1265 of 1989, Ahmad Din petitioner has not been able to satisfactorily explain his failure to apply for the post of a Lambardar in time when eight other -persons belonging to different communities had applied for it. His contention regarding lack of publicity in the revenue estate is not borne out from the record. The authority cited by the learned counsel for remand of the case is not relevant in the instant matter. However, this revenue estate consists of more than 1500 acres of land and there is a case for creation of an additional post of Lambardari in this revenue estate. After creation of an additional 'post, applications may be invited for the appointment of a Lambardar and Ahmad Din petitioner can also apply for the post at the appropriate time. The Commissioner's order dated 24-7-1989 is modified to that extent, and the revision petition is disposed of in the above terms.
11. The orders in these cases were reserved and shall be communicated to the petitioners.