' Respondent No.4, a duly appointed Lambardar of Chak No.146/9-L Chicha Watni, District Sahiwal was removed as such vide order dated 16-4-2003 of respondent No.3. This order was upheld by the respondent No.2 who dismissed the appeal filed by respondent No. 4 on 29-8-2003. During this interregnum the petitioner was appointed as a Lambardar vide order dated .12-8-2003. The respondent No.4 filed revision petitions against the said order dated 29-8-2003 of respondent No.2 as well as the said order of appointment of the petitioner dated 12-3-2004. Both the revision petitions were allowed by the respondent No.1 vide order dated 12-4-2004.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the case Muhammad Yousaf v. Member, Board of Revenue (1996 SCM R 1581') argues that the fact that the respondent No.4 was an absentee, having been established, the respondent No. 1 has acted without lawful authority by passing the impugned order and remanding the case back to the respondent No.3 for holding an inquiry.
3. I have gone through the documents appended with this writ petition with the assistance of learned counsel. Now I find that an application was filed by one Zahid Hussain against the respondent No.4 stating that he is not permanently residing in the revenue estate, does not collect the land revenue himself and because of his absence the Pattidars are facing difficulties. Tehsildar Chichawatni conducted some inquiry and a report was filed that respondent No.4 is not a permanent resident of said revenue estate and is resident in an estate 18/20 K.M. Away and he does not visit the Chak in question and does not collect the land revenue himself and does not take interest in the Larnbardari matters. He is not available to attest the papers. It was contended on behalf of respondent No.4 that there are no outstanding dues and he is in fact residing in the said Chak. The D.0.(R), Sahiwal proceeded to remove the respondent No.4.
The respondent No.2 agreed vide order dated 29-8-2003.
4. The respondent No.1 has set aside the said order.s. According to him the removal his been ordered in rather a slipshod manner. It has further been observed as to whether petitioner can be removed on the ground that he is a nonresident. He has accordingly directed the respondent No.3 to decide the matter afresh.
5. Now coming to the said contention of the learned counsel, their Lordships in the said case of Muhammad Yousaf were dealing with a matter of appointment of a Lambardar and not his removal.
6. Now, the grounds for dismissal of a Lambardar are stated in Rule 18 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968. Sub-rule (1) enumerates the four conditions mentioned in clauses A to E thereof, upon the existence whereof the Lambardar "shall" be dismissed. Now sub-rule (2) enumerates the conditions mentioned in clauses A to G thereof, upon the existence whereof the Lambardar "may" be dismissed. The absence from the estate is mentioned in clause 'E' of sub-rule (2) of Rule 18.
7. Now it will be seen that whereas in cases covered by clauses A to E of sub-rule 1, the competent authority is bound to dismiss the Lambardar, in the cases covered by clauses A to G of sub-rule 2 of rule 18 the said provision vests the competent authority with a discretion in the matter.
8. Now I called upon the learned counsel to demonstrate as to what is the population of the revenue estate. This question was put as apparently only one person in the said revenue estate had filed the said application. The learned counsel is unable to point out from the available material as to what is the actual population. I then called upon the learned counsel to demonstrate as to how many. Mutations could not be sanctioned or difficulty was faced by the Pattidars because of the absence of the respondent No.4, he is unable to cite even a single mutation and of course there is nothing available on record in this regard. Ultimately I asked the learned counsel as to whether any Government dues are payable by the respondent No.4 or is there any complaint that Aabiana or land revenue for any crop or year in the said estate had not been collected or paid by respondent No.4 in the Government Treasury. The answer is in the negative.
9. Having thus examined the records I fully agree with the learned Member of Board of Revenue when he says that the matter has been dealt with in a slipshod manner. The first fact to be determined is as to whether existing Lambardar i.e. Respondent No.4 is absent from the estate and if so whether he is not able to discharge his duties because of his absence. After determination of the said facts, the authority concerned i.e. Respondent No.3 has then to determine as to whether in the said circumstances, the respondent No.4 is liable to be dismissed and it is but apparent upon a plain reading of said sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968.
10. This writ petition is accordingly found to be without any force and is dismissed in limine.