P L D 1957 W (PLP)
GHULAM QADIR KHAN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1957 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM QADIR KHAN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1957 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1957 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1957 W (PLP) (GHULAM QADIR KHAN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Anwar for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Candidate holding no land at time when Collector made appointment‑Candidate acquiring land by date on which Commissioner decided case‑Commissioner directing that appointment be made afresh after taking into account property acquired by candidate‑Appeal against order of Commissioner.
Judgment & Decree
H. A. MAJID.‑
The first point, which goes against the appellant, is that his appeal is time‑barred. The Commis sioner's decision was announced on 20th July 1955. A copy of the order, which is on the file, was asked for by the appellant on 12th November 1955, which was after the period of limitation had lapsed. The appeal was actually lodged on 13th December 1955. I have no hesitation in holding that this appeal is time‑barred. The question arises whether I should treat this case as one of revision. The present respondent is stated to have held no land at the time when the Collector was making the Lambardari appointment in dispute. He, however, acquired some land by the date on which the Commissioner decided the case. The Commissioner's decision is to the effect that the Lambardari appointment should be made afresh after taking into account the property which had been acquired by the present respondent. The contention on behalf of the present petitioner is that a qualification, which did not exist, cannot be allowed to be acquired subsequent to the date on which the Collector passed his order. I do not see any legal objection and would, therefore, not interfere in revision at this stage. The result is that this case is dismissed K.M.A Appeal dismissed.