P L D 1966 W (PLP)
ASGHAR ALI‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ALI‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | ASGHAR ALI‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ALI‑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) (ASGHAR ALI‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ALI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rao Muhammad Ashfaque for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Latif for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar‑Appointment by Colonization Officer, Thal Development Authority‑Appeal lies to Commissioner arid not to Chairman, Thal Development Authority.
Judgment & Decree
Lambardar‑Appointment by Colonization Officer, Thal Development Authority‑Appeal lies to Commissioner arid not to Chairman, Thal Development Authority. Rao Muhammad Ashfaque for Petitioner. Muhammad Latif for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 6th of June 1964, passed by the Chairman, Thal Development Authority, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The facts of the case are that the Colonization Officer, Thal Development Authority, exercising the powers of a Collector, appointed the respondent as Lambardar. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chairman, Thal Development Authority who rejected it. Hence this revision. The Chairman, Thal Development Authority, has not been entrusted with the powers of a Commissioner. He cannot, therefore, entertain or dispose of the appeal preferred against an order passed by the Collector, I, therefore, accept the revision and remand the case to the Commissioner, Sargodha Division for decision on merits after hearing the parties. K.M.A Revision accepted.