P L D 1957 W (PLP)
FAJJU‑Petitioner Versus ISMAIL‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1957 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FAJJU‑Petitioner Versus ISMAIL‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1957 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 1957 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1957 W (PLP) (FAJJU‑Petitioner Versus ISMAIL‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khawaja Abdur Rahim for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Shafi for Respondent.
- I have heard Kh. Abdur Rahim, Advocate for the peti tioner and Mr. Muhammad Shafi. Advocate for the respon dent. The predominant tribe settled in the chak is Kamboh to which both the contestants belong. Neither of the parties has any hereditary claims. The respondent was selected mainly on the ground that he was allotted more land in the Chak and he was a younger man.
Headnotes / Summary
Appointment‑Persons of same family closely related to each other‑Should not be appointed Lambardars to fill two posts fallen vacant in a chak.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Shafi for Respondent. This is a petition against an order of the Commis sioner Multan Division, dated 28th June 1955, upholding an order passed by the Collector, Nili Bar Colony Pakpattan, on 14th December 1954, appointing the respondent a Lambardar in Chak No. 67/EB. Tahsil Pakpattan, District Montgomery. The vacancy had occurred owing to the migration of a non Muslim Lambardar. I have heard Kh. Abdur Rahim, Advocate for the peti tioner and Mr. Muhammad Shafi. Advocate for the respon dent. The predominant tribe settled in the chak is Kamboh to which both the contestants belong. Neither of the parties has any hereditary claims. The respondent was selected mainly on the ground that he was allotted more land in the Chak and he was a younger man. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that in fact the land allotted to the petitioner in this Chak as well as the land since purchased by him exceeds in area the unencumbered land allotted to the respondent. The fards produced before me appear to bear out this statement. It has also been stated that while the petitioner is Kamboh Vinaik and 133 persons belonging to this sub‑tribe have been allotted land in this Chak, the respondent is a Third Vinaik to which sub‑tribe only 54 allottees belong. The respondent admits that he is a Thind but says that the petitioner is not a Vinaik. The most serious argument, however, which has been urged before me on behalf of the petitioner, is that the respon dent is closely related to Faiz Muhammad, the second Lambar dar, who has been selected to fill one of these vacancies. An affidavit has been produced before me as well as certified copies of the pedigree‑table which show that Faiz Muhammad's grand father, Hashim and Ismail's father, Abdullah, are real brothers. This is admitted by Ismail respondent. I agree with the plea urged before me that it would be contrary to the public interest to have two closely related persons of the same family to fill the posts of two Lambardars in this Chak. The petitioner is undoubtedly much older in years than the respondent but he is said to have three grown up sons, who can help him in the discharge of his duties. As important considerations mentioned in rule 15 of Land Revenue Rules, have been ignored in this case I set aside the order of the Collector and accept the petition. K. M. A. Petition accepted.