P L D 1966 W (PLP)
DIN MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus NAWAZISH ALI‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan. |
| Parties | DIN MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus NAWAZISH ALI‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 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 1966 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. U. 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 1966 W (PLP) (DIN MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus NAWAZISH ALI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Kamal Mustafa Bukhari for Petitioner.
- Shaikh Muhammad Almas Ali for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Candidate belonging to majority community and more educated‑Appointment upheld. (b) Revision‑Concurrent finding of Courts below‑No interference.
Judgment & Decree
Kamal Mustafa Bukhari for Petitioner. Shaikh Muhammad Almas Ali for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 16th of June 1965, passed by Commissioner, Multan, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The facts of the case are that Faqir Muhammad Lambardar of the village died and the post fell vacant. Six candidates applied for the vacancy. Ultimately the Collector appointed the respondent. The petitioner went in appeal to the Commis sioner but it was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been conceded that the respondent belongs to the majority community and is more educated. The learned counsel has, however, stated that the respondent does not own any land in the patti. His contention is that the sale of land which the respondent purchased after applying to the Collector for the post, is a fictitious one. I have consulted the statement prepared by the Revenue Officers and find that the respondent owns four acres within and four acres outside the patti. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the respondent was an absentee. This question was gone into by the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner, and they both held that the respondent was not an absentee. The mere fact that the petitioner was elected as a member of the Electoral College from Multan Cantt. would not in itself be sufficient to prove that he was absentee when at the same time, he was entered as a voter from this very village. In these circumstances, I see no justification for any interference with the concurrent findings of the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.