P L D 1960 W (PLP)
SARDAR MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAYE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1960 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. Z. Khan, Member Board of Revenue |
| Parties | SARDAR MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAYE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1960 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 1960 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. Z. Khan, Member Board of Revenue.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1960 W (PLP) (SARDAR MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAYE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Minor may be appointed if otherwise quaked. (b) Lambardar‑
Judgment & Decree
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Minor may be appointed if otherwise quaked. (b) Lambardar‑Order of Collector neither perverse nor unreasonable‑No interference. Ghulam Bari Salimi for Petitioner. The petitioner was selected neither by the Collector nor by the Commissioner. Both the parties are Arains. The petitioner holds 51 Kanals and 14 Marlas of land and worked as a temporary Lambardar. The respondent has a hereditary claim, holds 229 Kanals of land, was recommended by all the Revenue Officers and is a minor. It was contended that the respondent has no hereditary claim. In support of this contention certified; copy of the pedigree‑table was produced. It showed that Qasim Ali Khan had two sons namely Abdul Majid and Muhammad Bashir. A certified copy of the mutation register was also produced which showed that Abdul Hayee is the son of Abdul Aziz. These documents do not prove the contention that the respondent has no hereditary claim, as his grand‑father Abdul Hamid was a Lambardar. The respondent is 15 years of age and in view of his hereditary claim and much larger holding, I do not find sufficient justification for giving him merely because he is a minor. The work could be carried on during his minority by a Sarbrah. There are numerous rulings that the order of the Collector in Lambardari cases should not be interfered with unless it is perverse or unreasonable. That is not so in the present case. The result is that the petition is rejected in limine. K. M. A. Petition rejected.