P L D (Rev (PLP)
NAZIR AHMED — Appellant Versus GHULAM HAIDER‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Saidullah Khan, Financial Commissioner |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMED — Appellant Versus GHULAM HAIDER‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Lambardari |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Lambardari as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Saidullah Khan, Financial Commissioner.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D (Rev (PLP) (NAZIR AHMED — Appellant Versus GHULAM HAIDER‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑New appointment‑Allegations of new illega lities or irregularities committed by appointee should be preferred before appropriate authorities‑Not allowed to be raised before Financial Commissioner in revision.
Judgment & Decree
SAIDULLAH KHAN, F. C.‑‑This is an application for revision under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against the order of the Commissioner Rawalpindi Division dated the 14th May, 1951, by which he rejected the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the decision of E. A. S. O., Gujrat, dated the 17th September, 1949. Nazir Ahmad with his counsel present. Ghulam Haider, respondent, in spite of service is absent. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the peti tioner in this case was that the appointment of Ghulam Haider, respondent, son of the deceased lambardar, Jehan Khan was most objectionable as it was opposed to the existing rules relating to the appointment of lambardars and that the Com missioner had, therefore gravely erred in appointing him as such in the vacancy caused by the demise of the respondent's father. The learned counsel proceeded to say that certain grave irregularities came to light for which material was available with him which would justify his contention that the respondent was not a desirable person to remain as lambardar and should therefore be removed from office forthwith. I told the learned counsel as was also pointed out to him by the learned Commissioner, that the illegalities or irregu larities, if any committed by the respondent can and should form the subject‑matter of a separate enquiry and he will therefore be well advised to move the appropriate authorities for the respondent's dismissal rather than to introduce the subject‑matter of those irregularities which are new in nature here in this Court. The learned counsel concluded his argu ments with the remark‑that the papers which are being filed in this Court should be forwarded to proper, quarters for dis posal. However, this contention was accepted. As regards the revision petition under reference I find myself in agreement with the findings of the learned Commissioner and accordingly reject this revision petition. Parties to be informed. A. H. Petition rejected.