P L D 1959 W (PLP)
SIKANDAR‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M.Z. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | SIKANDAR‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 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 1959 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 1959 W (PLP) (SIKANDAR‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ghulam Abbas Jafri for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar‑ Appointment‑Tribal strength to prevail where tribe‑wise area is balanced‑Appointment of candidate of same tribe in other Patti immaterial. (b) Lambardar‑ Appointment‑Concurrent orders of Collector and Commissioner not to be interfered with unless perverse or unreasonable. Sh. Chiragh Din for Muhammad Shafi. Ch. Muhammad Aslam for Muhammad Ismail.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Aslam for Muhammad Ismail. These two petitions may be taken up together, as they relate to the same order. They are under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against order dated 17‑10‑56, passed by the Commissioner, Multan Division, by which he confirmed order dated 6‑5‑57, passed by the Collector of Lyallpur, appointing respondent Muhammad Ismail as Lambardar of Patti Ragbhir Singh, Chak No. 93‑J.B., Tehsil Toba Tek Singh, District Lyallpur.
2. The vacancy arose as a result of the migration of the non‑Muslim Lambardar. The tribal composition of this Patti is as follows: ‑‑ Number Area Gujjars 159 430 Rajputs ... 85 431
3. Petitioner Muhammad Shafi is a Rajput and has worked as a temporary Lambardar. He owns 16 Kanals of land and has no hereditary claim. The respondent is a Gujjar, which is the predominent tribe, owns 12 acres of land and was an ex‑Lambardar. Thus there is no reason why petitioner Muhammad Shaft, should be preferred to him.
4. Petitioner Sikandar owns 78 Kanals and 3 Marlas of land in various capacities, valued at Rs. 9,925 and has also produced a certificate from the Central Record Room, showing that be was a Lambardar in East Punjab. The respondent owns 12 acres of land. His other particulars have already been given.
3. The main contention of petitioner Sikandar at the time of arguments was that in view of the fact that a Gujjar has already been appointed in the other Patti, a Rajput should be appointed in this Patti, particularly because Rajputs own 431 acres of land. In cases of this nature it is the number and not the property which counts. The fact that a Guj jar has beer appointed in the other Patti could be taken into consideration if the number of Rajputs in this Patti was about the same as that of Gujjars. That is not so. The Gujjars are in an overwhelming majority in this Patti. That being so the claim of a suitable Gujjar candidate cannot be overlooked only on the ground that a Gujjar has been appointed in the other Patti.
6. It has also to be remembered that the Collector and the Commissioner have come to a concurrent finding in the present case and it is well established that such a finding should not be upset unless it is perverse or unreasonable. That is not so in the present case.
7. The result is that both the petitions are rejected. A. H. Petitions rejected.