MUHAMMAD DAIM Versus NAZIR MUHAMMAD
ORDER
Brief facts of the case are that one Allah Wasaya of village Mauj Garh applied to the Assistant Colonization Officer, Cholistan Development Authority, Bahawalpur that Nazar Muhammad existing lambardar of the village is not a fit person for the job being an illiterate and requested that he may be appointed as lambardar. The Assistant Colonization Officer vide his order dated 24‑7‑1989 created new patti for Bhatti tribe and appointed the petitioner as lambardar. The case 'was submitted to the Managing Director, Cholistan Development Authority, Bahawalpur who vide order dated 30‑4‑1989 endorsed the said order of A.C.O. The respondent challenged that order before the Commissioner, Bahawalpur who vide his order dated 14‑1‑1990 set aside the order of Managing Director/Collector on the ground that under Rule 16 of Land Revenue Rules, 1968 the Commissioner alone is competent to create a post of lambardar and the Collector while exercising this authority has acted beyond his jurisdiction. Hence this revision petition a/s 164 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after the creation of additional post of lambardari, the present petitioner was appointed as a lambardar by the Colonization Officer/M.D., Cholistan Development Authority. However, in appeal before the Commissioner the appointment was set aside. The impugned order was inconsistent as the learned Commissioner vide his order dated 1‑2‑1989, in the case titled "Ghulam Muhammad v. Ata Muhammad" had held that the Collector was fully competent to decrease or increase the number of lambardars. The learned counsel maintained that para. 6.20 of the Punjab Colony Manual authorities the Collector to vary the number of lambardars in a revenue estate and according to PLD 1953 Rev. 3, it was held to be desirable to have 2 lambardars. It was further contended that Cholistan was not covered by the definition of `Revenue Estate' under section 4(9) of the Land Revenue Act, read with Rule 16 of the Land Revenue Rules. It was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted and the impugned order be set aside. .
3. The learned counsel for the respondent maintained in rebuttal that Mauj Garh was not an `estate' but is an `Abadi' and hence the rule of a lambardari for 20 squares of cultivated land was not applicable. Rule 16 of ibid was also not applicable regarding the number of lambardars as the complexion and composition of population has to be examined. The predominant community in that area is the respondent's community. The petitioner does not own any land in Cholistan and he does not meet the other requirements either. He was an absentee living in Chak No.32 outside the Cholistan Area. The Collector's order dated 30‑4‑1989 does not give any reason for his appointment. Creation of a post of lambardari is followed by applications and appointment is made after considering such applications. The Collector had not even cared to examine that what was the demand of land revenue and how many lambardars are required for collections thereof.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner exercising his right of reply with the permission of the Court maintained that the respondent was never appointed as a lambardar and that Mauj Garh was inhabitated predominantly by the Bhatti community.
5. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. It is evident that the learned Commissioner has passed two contradictory orders involving the same point of law, i.e., whether the Collector, in a Colony Area is competent to vary the number of lambardars according to the requirements of the circumstances. The impugned order cannot be sustained on this short ground alone and is liable to be set aside. The case is remanded to the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, for a fresh decision after hearing the parties. While dealing with the case, the Commissioner may also like to examine whether the power to vary the number of lambardars vested in the Collector under para 6.20 of Colony Manual read with the Land Revenue Rules which confers an, unfettered discretion on the Collector to appoint any one he likes without adherence to the principles of natural justice and the criteria and the procedure laid down for the appointment of lambardars under the Land Revenue Rules ibid. It is obvious that the existing lambardar was not heard when the Collector decided to increase the number of lambardars and also no applications were invited from other eligible candidates, if any, in that) Abadi.
6. The impugned order is therefore set aside and .the case is remanded to the learned Commissioner for fresh decision in the above terms.
A.A./487/R Revision accepted,