P L D 1959 W (PLP)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus DONA KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus DONA KHAN‑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: 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 1959 W (PLP) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus DONA KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A. H. Qureshi for Petitioner.
- Sh. Mazharul Haq for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar‑ Hereditary claim doubtful where heirs of candidate's elder brother still alive. (b) Lambardar‑ Appointment‑Two brothers in two Pattis undesirable.
Judgment & Decree
This is an appeal against order dated 21st June 1957, passed by Commissioner, Multan Division, whereby he accepted the appeal of Dona Khan and set aside the order of Collector, Montgomery who had appointed Ghulam Muhammad, petitioner, as Lambardar in Patti Jhanda Singh of Chak No. 5,/S.P., Tahsil Dipalpur, District Montgomery. The facts of the case are that when the question of permanently filling up the vacancy of the Lambardar in the Patti mentioned above came up for consideration, four candidates applied for the post. The Collector ignored the respondent because he was absent and it was presumed that he was no longer interested in the Lambardari. Dona Khan went in appeal to the Commissioner who discovered that Dona Khan's presence was noted in the Urdu record and he, therefore, held that the Collectors finding was obviously incorrect. It was also found that Ghulam Muhammad's real brother Qasim Ali had been appointed Lambardar in the other Patti of the same village. The Commissioner, therefore, accepted the appeal. Hence this second appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the first instance it is doubtful whether Ghulam Muhammad can claim consideration on hereditary grounds. It is true that his father was a Lambardar but the eldest brother was Dost Muhammad and Dost Muhammad's sons are still alive. It is also true as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ghulam Muham mad is literate and owns more land but as observed by the learned Commissioner his real brother is a Lambardar in other Patti and it is undesirable to appoint two brothers as Lambardars in the same village. In these circumstances I see no justification for any interfer ence. The appeal fails and is rejected hereby. A. H. Appeal rejected.