P L D 1966 W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD LATIF‑Petitioner Versus SARDAR KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD LATIF‑Petitioner Versus SARDAR KHAN‑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) (MUHAMMAD LATIF‑Petitioner Versus SARDAR KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Abdul Latif for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment ‑ Absentee ‑ Candidate living at distance of five miles from Chak may be appointed as Lambardar. (b) Practice‑Concurrent findings of fact by Collector and Commissioner‑Not interfered with.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Abdul Latif for Petitioner. The respondent is absent due to the fact that the service was effected on a wrong person. In the circumstances of the case, it is not however necessary to await his appearance. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 19th of April 1965, passed by Commissioner, Bahawalpur, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The facts of the case are that, when the question of appointing a permanent Lambardar in this Chak came up for consideration, the parties applied for the post. The Collector after examining the merits of the two candidates appointed Sardar Khan as Lambardar. The petitioner went in appeal to the Commissioner, but it was rejected. I have beard the learned counsel for the petitioner. His main contention is that the respondent is an absentee and should not have been appointed. I, however, find that the respondent is living at a distance of five miles and the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner did not consider this as a disqualification which would debar the appointment of the' respondent as Lambardar as the distance is not much and I have no hesitation in agreeing with them. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also laid great stress on what he calls wrong figures about the area owned by the parties. It is true that different figures were given in the statement prepared by the Patwari, but the learned Collector went into the question thoroughly and examined the colony record. As a result of his efforts, it came to light that the petitioner owned only 9 acres as one of the three brothers who jointly owned 27 acres. On the other hand, the area owned by Sardar Khan was found to be 46 acres. The learned counsel for the petitioner wishes that I should rely on the statement of the Patwari and not on the result of the enquiries made by the learned Collector. In these circumstances, I see no justification for any interference with the concurrent findings of the learned Collector and learned Commissioner. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.