It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to the tribe which is biggest landowner in the estate. The petitioner has more landed property than the respondent. He has been Member of Water Course Committee and Agricultural Committee and as such has a social standing in the Revenue estate. It is stated that the petitioner is Abadkar against the status of the respondent who is an alien to the Chak having purchased the land very recently. It is stated that registration of a criminal (theft) case and submission of its challan to the Court constitute a ground for declaring the respondent as invalid to hold the office of Headman of the estate. It is stated that it is mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner is primary pass. Whereas in the reports of the field staff it is stated that he is middle pass. It is, therefore, a misreading of record.
The petitioner is in good health and as such can perform the functions of Headman of the estate competently and affectively.
2. The respondent is present in person. His contention is that he is owner of 8 acres of land which is sufficient to cover Zar-e-Bhart. He is resident of the Chak. Whereas the petitioner is non-resident of the Chak. It is stated that a false case was got registered against him by the petitioner. That case has been quashed. It is stated that all the right holders of the Chak are his supporters and he enjoys a good standing in the community. There is no outstanding Government dues against him and he has been performing the functions of Lambardar efficiently.
3. It has repeatedly been held by the superior Courts and the Board of Revenue that choice of District Collector in selecting a Lambardar ought not to be interfered with unless there is any gross irregularity in such appointment. The comparative edge of the petitioner as advocated by learned counsel for the petitioner, if at all, has very marginal impact on the merits of the case. The respondent is a choice of District Collector and no specific disqualification or ineligibility has been pointed out. As such the orders of District Collector upheld by Commissioner are maintained.
Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed.