The abovecited two revision petitions are being disposed of through this single order as these are inter-connected and facts/law point involved in both the petitions are the same.
2. These revision petitions have been filed under section 164 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 against the order, dated 31-12-1997 passed by the Commissioner, Lahore Division whereby he dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners against the order of D.C./Collector, Okara, dated 22-9-1996.
3. Brief facts of the case are that consequent upon the death of Muhammad Bakhsh, Lambardar of Chak No.7/4.L., Tehsil and District Okara permission was granted to start the proceedings for appointment of his successor on 8-2-1996. Applications were accordingly invited from the inhabitants of the Chak through "Mushtari Munadi". Four applications were received for the said post of Lambardar. The two candidates namely Muhammad Ashraf son of Noor Muhammad and Khurshid Ali son of Shah Din did not participate in the proceedings. Accordingly ex parte proceedings were initiated against both the abovementioned candidates. The District Collector, Okara fixed the case in Peshi and summoned the contestant. The District Collector, Okara after examining the respective claims of the contestants appointed Abdul Sattar as Lambardar of Chak No.7/4-L, Tehsil and District Okara, vide order, dated 22-9-1996. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed appeal before the Commissioners, Lahore Division which was dismissed. Hence the present rev;sion petitions.
3. I have heard the learned counsel of all concerned in detail.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner Muhammad Afzal stated that Muhammad Afzal was the eldest son of the deceased Lambardar. He stated that rule of primogeniture would apply in this case.- Further stated that Commissioner's order was announced after a month of hearing and no rehearing was done. He stated that Muhammad Afzal deserves to be appointed as Lambardar even on merit because he was educated, had retired as a Patwari and his name has also been entered in the Khasra Girdawari.
5. The learned counsel for Muhammad Ashraf stated that it had been incorrectly stated that Muhammad Ashraf had withdrawn from the case. The factual position is that ex parte proceedings were taken and the version of Muhammad Ashraf had never been heard. He stated that ex parte proceedings were mala fide. He further stated that it was incorrect to say that Abdul Sattar's father was a Lambardar because that Lambardar Nabi Bakhsh was different person and not father of Abdul Sattar. He further stated that Collector had stated that Abdul Sattar had more land. This was also incorrect because Abdul Sattar's land is only 52 Kanals while that of Muhammad Ashraf 105 Kanals.
6. The learned counsel for Abdul Sattar stated that the concurrent findings of Courts below were in favour of Abdul Sattar. Further stated that Nabi Bakhsh father of Abdul Sattar was Lambardar in India and also in Pakistan. He further stated that rule of primogeniture was not mandatory in nature but was directory. The deceased Lambardar was not a resident of the Revenue Estate and his son Muhammad Afzal candidate, was also not a resident of that village. He further, stated that Muhammad Afzal's name had been entered subsequently in the voter's list.
7. I have given my careful thought to the arguments produced by the counsel of all concerned. It is my considered opinion that in this case the rule of primogeniture would apply and according to the rule of primogeniture Muhammad Afzal eldest son of deceased Lambardar is the most eligible person for being appointed as Lambardar. On other grounds also he does not suffer from any inability and the objections being raised by other candidates are meant merely to prevent his appointment as Lambardar. His name is entered in the voters' list. He does hold land in the Revenue Estate. In view of these considerations I consider that Muhammad Afzal has a preferential right over others. I accept his revision petition and set aside the impugned orders.