IMTIAZ MASRUR, SENIOR MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB.- The above cited to 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 DC/Collector, Okara dated 22.9.1996.
3. Brief facts of the case are that consequent upon the death of Muhammad Bakhsh, lamabardar 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 to candidates namely Muhammad Ashraf son of Noor Muhammad and Khurshid Ali son of Shah Din did not participate in the proceedings. Accordingly ex-pane proceedings were initiated against both the above mentioned candidates. The District Collector Okara fixed the case in Pehsi and summoned the contestant. The District Collector, Okara, after earning 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 revision petitions.
4. 1 have heard the learned counsel of all concerned in detail.
5. The learned counsel for petitioner Muhammad Afzal stated 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 re-hearing 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.
6. The learned counsel for Muhammad Ashraf stated that it had been incorrectly stated that Muhammad Ashraf had withdrawn from the case.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 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.
7. 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 voters' list.
8. I have given my careful thought to be 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 anc the objections being raised by the candidates are meant merely to prevent his appointment as lambardar. His name is entered in the voters' list. He does not 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.