MUHAMMAD IKRAM Versus State

ORDER

SAQIB MANAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-VII).--- These revision petitions have been filed under Section 164 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 against the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by Commissioner, Multan Division whereby appeals filed by the present petitioners were dismissed. As facts and law points involved in these cases are interconnected therefore these are being disposed of through single order.

2. Facts of these cases have been mentioned in the orders passed by the lower courts so there is no need to reiterate the same here.

3. The petitioner Muhammad Ikram was represented by Advocate Sardar Khalid Hussain Dogar who argued that the matter involved in these cases is regarding appointment of Lambardar of Chak No.281/EB, Tehsil Burewala District Vehari. After death of Muhammad Qasim on 05.01.2016, post of Lambardar became vacant. Therefore, applications were invited from the interested persons after wide publicity in the vicinity. The case was processed after receipt of applications from the interested persons and the Tehsildar, Burewala submitted his report dated 07.08.2023 with the recommendations in favour of Irfan-ul-Haq, respondent No.3 for his appointment as Lambardar. The Assistant Commissioner after conducting Jalsa-e-Aam in the village endorsed recommendations of the Tehsildar. The petitioner belongs to Rajput Bhatti community which is in majority while the respondent No.3 belongs to Jatt community which is minority community. The petitioner and other candidates filed applications. 3-45-2within stipulated time on 05.01.2017 while the respondent No.3 filed application at belated stage on 05.11.2022 who was not owner of land at that time. The respondent No.3 managed attestation of inheritance mutation No.1378, dated 19.10.2022 whereby he obtained 40-k, 15-m land in his name by depriving due shares of his brothers and sisters. As the respondent No.3 has usurped rights of his brothers and sisters at the time of attestation of inheritance mutation therefore he will not perform duties of Lambardar honestly. Father of the petitioner was doctor and also social worker who participated in social welfare activities. Therefore, the petitioner is more influential than the respondent No.3 who is fit for the post of Lambardar. The petitioner is young man of 45 years age having sound physique who is not defaulter of any government dues. As the respondent No.3 filed his application after the stipulated period therefore he was not eligible for the post of Lambardar. Reliance was placed on 2015 CLC 1531. The petitioner is graduate and is also doctor by profession. He is owner of 24 kanals of land so he is fit for the post of Lambardar. But the Deputy Commissioner, Vehari appointed respondent No.3 as Lambardar without considering the above mentioned facts of the case while passing the order dated 24.04.2024. The District Collector, Vehari vide order dated 24.02.2024 appointed the respondent No.3 as Lambardar by ignoring these facts of the case. The said order was assailed by the petitioner through appeal filed before the Commissioner, Multan Division which was dismissed vide order dated 17.12.2024. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned Commissioner, Multan Division without appreciating contentions of the petitioner and also by not applying his independent judicious mind. Finally, it was prayed that revision petition (R.O.R. No. 522/2025) may be accepted.

4. The petitioner Nasir Mehmood was represented by Advocate Qamar Khurshid Bhatti who argued that the matter involved in these cases is regarding appointment of Lambardar of Chak No.281/EB, Tehsil Burewala District Vehari. After death of Muhammad Qasim on 05.01.2016, post of Lambardar became vacant. Therefore, applications were invited from the interested persons after wide publicity in the vicinity. The case was processed after receipt of applications from the interested persons and the Tehsildar, Burewala submitted his report dated 07.08.2023 with the recommendations in favour of Irfan-ul-Haq respondent No.3 for his appointment as Lambardar. The Assistant Commissioner after conducting Jalsa-e-Aam in the village endorsed recommendations of the Tehsildar. The petitioner belongs to Rajput community which is in majority while the respondent No.3 belongs to Jatt community which is minority community. The petitioner and other candidates filed applications within stipulated time on 05.01.2017 while the respondent No.3 filed application at belated stage on 05.11.2022 who was not owner of land at that time. As the respondent No.3 filed his application after the stipulated period therefore he was not eligible for the post of Lambardar. Reliance was placed on 2013 SCMR 363. The respondent No.3 managed attestation of inheritance mutation No.1378, dated 19.10.2022 whereby he obtained 40-k, 15-m land in his name by depriving due shares of his brothers and sisters. As the respondent No.3 has usurped rights of his brothers and sisters at the time of attestation of inheritance mutation therefore he will not perform duties of Lambardar honestly. The respondent No.6 Monis Raza is neither permanent resident of Chak No.281/EB nor he has any dera in the said Chak. His vote is registered in Burewala. He is permanently living in Burewala City and he is also practicing lawyer. According to provisions of Section 175(1) of Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, he being absentee, is not qualified for appointment as Lambardar. Muhammad Ikram was given 45 marks by the AC/ Collector, Burewala but the Commissioner wrongly mentioned 55 marks of Muhammad Ikram. Ikram is a doctor and his clinic is located in Jamlera. As such he is absentee and not qualified for appointment of Lambardar. Reliance is placed on 2014 CLC 1442 and 2021 SCMR 1336. The petitioner enjoys good reputation. The petitioner belongs to majority community while the respondent No.3 belongs to Jatt Sandhu community which is third majority community. The petitioner is owner of 33 kanals, 5 marlas land in the said Chak which is under his cultivating possession and the same is sufficient to meet the requirements of Zar-e-Bhart. The marks sheet was not prepared in accordance with law as the candidates were awarded marks against real facts of the case. The said order was assailed by the petitioner through appeal filed before the Commissioner, Multan Division which was dismissed vide order dated 17.12.2024. The impugned orders were passed without consultation of record and also by not appreciating contentions of the petitioner therefore these are liable to be set aside by accepting this revision petition. Finally, it was prayed that revision petition (R.O.R. No.743/2025) may be accepted.

5. The petitioner Jahanzeb Khan was represented by Advocate Mian Mumtaz Ahmad Zahid who argued that the matter involved in these cases is regarding appointment of Lambardar of Chak No.281/EB, Tehsil Burewala District Vehari. After death of Muhammad Qasim on 05.01.2016, post of Lambardar became vacant Therefore, applications were invited from the interested persons after wide publicity in the vicinity. The case was processed after receipt of applications from the interested persons and the Tehsildar, Burewala submitted his report dated 07.08.2023 with the recommendations in favour of Irfan-ul-Haq respondent No.3 for his appointment as Lambardar. The Assistant Commissioner after conducting Jalsa-e-Aam in the village endorsed recommendations of the Tehsildar. The report was prepared by the revenue filed staff by ignoring real facts of the case. The petitioner belongs to Awan community while the respondent No.3 belongs to Jatt community. Earlier on Lambardari was held by Awan community since long. The deceased Lambardar Muhammad Qasim was also from Awan community. Moreover, the Awan community is the majority community since they hold the major land in the chak. The petitioner and other candidates filed applications within stipulated time on 05.01.2017 while the respondent No.3 filed application at belated stage on 05.11.2022 who was not owner of land at that time. As the respondent No.3 filed his application after the stipulated period therefore he was not eligible for the post of Lambardar. Reliance was placed on 2015 CLC 1531. Infact the respondent had submitted his application directly to the DC in 2023 upon which the Revenue Officer included his name in the report. This action stands in total violation of Rule 17(2) of Land Revenue Rules, 1968. The respondent No.3 managed attestation of inheritance mutation No. 1378, dated 19.10.2022 whereby he obtained 40-k, 15-m land in his name by depriving due shares of his brothers and sisters. As the respondent No.3 has usurped rights of his brothers and sisters at the time of attestation of inheritance mutation therefore he will not perform duties of Lambardar honestly. The petitioner is permanent resident of the said Chak who is law graduate and he is owner of 5 acres of land which is being cultivating by him. He is enjoying good reputation in the locality and he belongs to majority community. He is more influential than other contesting candidates. There is no bar on appointment of a lawyer as a Lambardar. Reliance is placed on 2020 CLC 869 and 200 CLC 1410. His father is Sarbarah Lambardar therefore he is eligible for the post of Lambardar but he was not appointed as Lambardar by ignoring real facts of the case. The respondent is convicted person so he cannot be appointed as Lambardar under Rule 18 of Land Revenue Rules, 1968. In the end it was prayed that R.O.R. No. 847/2025 be accepted.

6. The petitioner Monis Raza was represented by Advocate Malik Ghazanfar Khalid Saeed who argued that the matter involved in these cases is regarding appointment of Lambardar of Chak No.281/EB, Tehsil Burewala District Vehari. After death of Muhammad Qasim on 05.01.2016, post of Lambardar became vacant Therefore, applications were invited from the interested persons after wide publicity in the vicinity. The case was processed after receipt of applications from the interested persons and the Tehsildar, Burewala submitted his report dated 07.08.2023 with the recommendations in favour of Irfan-ul-Haq respondent No.3 for his appointment as Lambardar. The Assistant Commissioner after conducting Jalsa-e-Aam in the village endorsed recommendations of the Tehsildar. The report was prepared by the revenue filed staff by ignoring real facts of the case. The petitioner belongs to Rajput community which is in majority while the respondent No.3 belongs to Jatt community which is minority community. The mark sheet prepared by the revenue staff is incorrect. The petitioner has not received full marks in the category of "community" which is unfair. Instead of marking the category of community on the basis of sub caste the law requires that only the main caste should be considered. Reliance is placed on 1992 CLC 599. Moreover, the petitioner and other candidates filed applications within stipulated time on 05.01.2017 while the respondent No.3 filed application at belated stage on 05.11.2022 who was not owner of land at that time. As the respondent No.3 filed his application after the stipulated period therefore he was not eligible for the post of Lambardar. Reliance was placed on 2015 CLC 1531. The respondent No.3 managed attestation of Inheritance mutation No. 1378, dated 19.10.2022 whereby he obtained 40-k, 15-m land in his name by depriving due shares of his brothers and sisters. As the respondent No.3 has usurped rights of his brothers and sisters at the time of attestation of inheritance mutation therefore he will not perform duties of Lambardar honestly. The petitioner is owner of 27 acres land and he belongs to majority community. The findings of the lower courts that the petitioner is absentee from the Chak are totally incorrect but it is established from the domicile and CNIC that the petitioner is permanent resident of the said Chak. The ancestors of the petitioner were Jaddi Makeen of the said Chak and they remained in the said village throughout their life time. The petitioner is not defaulter of any government dues. The petitioner is a law graduate but he is a non-practicing lawyer. As such he is eligible for appointment as Lambardar. The lower courts while passing the impugned orders, did not consider these very important facts of the case and arrived at wrong and unfair conclusions, Finally, it was prayed that revision petition may be accepted.

7. The respondent Irfan-ul-Haq was represented by Advocate Arslan Fida Mitru who contended that the matter involved in these cases is regarding appointment of Lambardar of Chak No.281/EB, Tehsil Burewala District Vehari. After death of Muhammad Qasim on 05.01.2016, post of Lambardar became vacant. Therefore, applications were invited from the interested persons after wide publicity in the vicinity. The case was processed after receipt of applications from the interested persons and the Tehsildar, Burewala submitted his report dated 07.08.2023 with the recommendations in favour of Irfan-ul-Haq respondent No.3 for his appointment as Lambardar. The Assistant Commissioner after conducting Jalsa-e-Aam in the village endorsed recommendations of the Tehsildar. As per merit list, Nasir Mehmood obtained 45 marks, Jahanzeb got 55 marks, Muhammad Ikram was awarded 45 marks, Monis Raza was given 55 marks while the respondent was given 79 marks. One objection that has been raised against the respondent is regarding delay in submitting application. In this regard the superior courts have very clearly laid down that application can be received till final decision of the District Collector. Reliance is placed on PLD 1961 WP 75. The second objection raised against the respondent is regarding the FIR. In this regard it is stated that the said FIR is regarding Corona Virus violation. It is a minor matter and the respondent is on probation at present. Section 11 of Probation Act clearly stipulates that probation is not a conviction. Reliance is placed on 2022 PLJ 1218. The District Collector, Vehari thrashed out the matter and after observation of codal formalities, he appointed the respondent as Lambardar of the said Chak vide order dated 24.04.2024. The respondent fulfilled criteria laid down under the law for appointment as Lambardar. The respondent has recommendations of the Assistant Commissioner, Burewala in his favour being the most suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar. The respondent is choice of the District Collector and it has to be given preference unless it is perverse or against the law. The respondent was appointed as Lambardar of the said Chak vide order dated 24.04.2024 which was rightly and justifiably upheld by learned Commissioner, Multan Division after hearing contentions of the parties and consultation of record. The instant revision petitions have been filed against the concurrent orders passed by the lower courts after hearing contentions of the parties and consultation of record without committing any illegality or irregularity. Therefore, the orders passed by the lower courts are liable to be upheld by dismissing these revision petitions, Finally, dismissal of the revision petitions was prayed for.

8. I have carefully considered arguments of counsel for the parties and have also perused record of the case file as well as the impugned orders. On examination of record, it transpired that the matter involved in this case is regarding appointment of Lambardar of Chak No.281/EB, Tehsil Burewala District Vehari. After death of Muhammad Qasim on 05.01.2016, post of Lambardar became vacant Therefore, applications were invited from the interested persons. The case was processed after receipt of applications from the interested persons and the Tehsildar, Burewala submitted his report dated 07.08.2023 with the recommendations in favour of Irfan-ul-Haq respondent No.3 for his appointment as Lambardar. The Assistant Commissioner after conducting Jalsa-e-Aam in the village endorsed recommendations of the Tehsildar. I have examined the report of the revenue field staff as well as the arguments of contesting candidates. It is concluded that there are two main points which require deliberation of this court. The first law point which requires consideration of this court is the time of submission of application. In this regard it is stated that, the one fact admitted between the parties is that Lambardar Muhammad Qasim passed away on 05.01.2016. It is also admitted between the candidates (specifically respondent) that the respondent Irfan-ul-Haq submitted application on 05.11.2022. This application was entertained along with application of another candidate Bushra Bibi by the orders of District Collector. The final order for appointment came on 24.04.2024. I find it rather strange that why the process of appointment has remained under so much delay. No plausible reason has been recorded by any revenue functionary for this delay. Nonetheless I feel that, it is important to rule on this very important legal question: Is it allowed to entertain application for the post of Lambardar after 6 years of demise of last Lambardar. Candidates have placed reliance on different legal authorities to support their respective stance. In this regard I have examined the dictum laid down by Hon'able Lahore High Court Lahore in case titled " Muhammad Iqbal v. District Collector. Faisalabad, etc, " reported at 2015 CLC 1531 . The Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore has very clearly held that time barred application cannot be entertained even for the post of Lambardar. In this regard I have carefully examined the notice of issued by Tehsildar, Burewala on 24.12.2016. The said notice clearly states that applications shall be received till 08.01.2017. Strangely enough the District Collector allowed/entertained the applications after the cut off date. This action of the District Collector is not supported by any legal provision. Neither has the District Collector recorded any reason for his action. Such unbridled and unstructured exercise of authority is not mandated by law. It is, therefore, held that the District Collector had no authority to entertain the application/nominations for the post after the cut off date. Hence, the respondent was not eligible for the post of Lambardar from the day one, since he did not submit application on time. In light of above, it is concluded that, the District Collector, Vehari appointed the Lambardar in violation of the policy of Board of Revenue, Punjab. A letter of caution be issued to the ex-District Collector on this account. Now I move to the second important question surrounding this case: The matter of majority community of the chak. In this regard a very active and interesting debate has been carried out in this court. The nutshell of this discussion/debate is that the Lambardari of this chak has remained in the Awan community as is evident from the fact that deceased Lambardar belonged to Awan community and the fact that Awan community is holding the largest land area in the chak. Secondly, if all sub-casts are clubbed together then Jutt community is largest community. Now that Irfan-ul-Haq is no more in the list of competing candidates the issue of Lambardari is to be decided between four candidates. All of these candidates are laying claim on the basis of "Community" and "Influence". The remaining candidates are: a) Monis Raza son of Mumtaz Khan: 55 marks b) Jahanzeb Khan son of Inayat Ullah: 55 marks c) Muhammad Ikram son of Rafiq: 45 marks d) Nasir son of Muhammad Ashraf: 45 marks

The above would indicate that the matter is now to be decided between the top two candidates: Jahanzeb Khan and Monis Raza both having 55 marks each. At this stage find It important to discuss these two candidates. Monis belongs to Rajput community and holds a law degree as well as above 51 kanal land. He is permanent resident and such there is nothing adverse against him. The other candidate Jahanzeb Khan belongs to Awan community. He is permanent resident of Chak who is law graduate and he is owner of 5 acres of land which is being cultivated by him. He is enjoying good reputation in the locality. His father has remained Sarbarah Lambardar. In my considered opinion, the petitioner Jahanzeb Khan has better claim for his appointment as Lambardar since he belongs to Awan community and this Lambardari has remained in Awan community previously as well since the deceased Lambardar was Awan. In this background of the cases, the revision petition filed by Jahanzeb Khan petitioner is accepted while the other Revision Petitions Nos. 522/2025, 743/2025 and 1090/2025 filed by other candidates are disposed off. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 24.04.2024 passed by the District Collector, Vehari and order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Multan Division are set aside and Mr. Jahanzeb Khan petitioner is appointed as Lambardar of the Chak No 281/EB, Tehsil Burewala District Vehari. The District Collector is directed to issue the orders of his appointment. These cases were reserved for announcement of order on 20.10.2025 which are being announced today. Parties be informed through their respective counsels. A copy of order be sent to District Collector, Vehari. Files be consigned to record room after their compilation.

MQ/17/Rev Order accordingly.