P L D 1962 W (PLP)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus SARDAR KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1962 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. Z. Khan Member Board of Revenue West Pakistan |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus SARDAR KHAN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1962 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 1962 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. Z. Khan Member Board of Revenue West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1962 W (PLP) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus SARDAR KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raja Hassan Akhter for Petitioner.
- Meraj Khalid for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. 13 --Appeal before Single Member of Board not involving law point --Treated as Revision. (b) Lambardar‑‑Appointment‑Physical incapacity‑Appointee appearing to be feeble‑minded, not giving coherent answers to questions‑Appointment rightly set aside by Commissioner. (c) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Candidate S M retiring, at appeal stage, provided S R was appointed by Commissioner‑S R appointed --Revision by third candidate G ‑ G considered ineligible due to feeble‑mindedness‑S R's appointment set aside by Single Member of Board owing to property being inadequate as security for Government demand‑‑S M appointed.
Judgment & Decree
Raja Hassan Akhter for Petitioner. Meraj Khalid for Respondent. This purports to be an appeal, but as no point of law is involved, I shall treat it as a petition in revision considering the' circumstances of the case. Ghulam Muhammad was appointed as Lambardar by the Collector, but this order was set aside on appeal by the Commis sioner who appointed the respondent. The Commissioner has observed that Ghulam Muhammad appears to be about 70 years old but when questioned he stated that he was only 40 years old and that the family is either feeble‑minded or prone to making false statements. Ghulam Muhammad was not present at the time of hearing and was waiting outside. I called him and questioned him. He appeared to be absent minded and could not give coherent replies. He looked to his Advocate whenever any question was put to him. I am convinced that owing to his physical incapacity he is totally unsuitable for appointment as Lambardar and so there was no reasonable ground for the Collector to appoint him. The respondent whom the Commissioner has appointed, is suitable in other respects but his property is inadequate as security for the Government demand. Sardar Khan, son of Miran Bakhsh, withdrew before the Commissioner on the condition that the respondent was appointed. Sardar Khan son of Miran Bakhsh holds 11 acres of land valued at Rs. 9,570 which is more than the Government demand. Although he withdrew in the Commissioner's Court he was following the proceedings and was present before me, presumably because he wanted his case to be considered if the order appointing Sardar Khan son of Ranja Khan was not upheld. Sardar Khan son of Miran Bakhsh is a Rajput which is the predominant tribe. He also has a hereditary claim. I am satisfied that he is the best candidate. The result is that the petition of Ghulam Muhammad is rejected, the appointment of Sardar Khan son of Ranja Khan by the Commissioner is set aside and Sardar Khan son of Miran Bakhsh is appointed as Lambardar of Patti Rajndar Singh, Chak No. 336/JB., Tehsil Toba Tek Singh, District Lyallpur. A. H. Order accordingly.