PLD 1959

P L D 1959 (W (PLP)

RASHID AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus HAKIM ALT‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Decided Date
Revision Side No. 182 of 1957‑58, decided on 4th March. 1959, District Montgomery.
Honorable Judges
M. Z. Khan, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P L D 1959 (W (PLP)
Forum / Court
Bench Members M. Z. Khan, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
Parties RASHID AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus HAKIM ALT‑Respondent
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
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: M. Z. 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) (RASHID AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus HAKIM ALT‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Habib Ismail for Petitioner.
  • Kh. Abdur Rahim for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

Horse‑breeding grantAllotment‑Recommendation of District Remount OfficerOrdinarily to be accepted. P L D 1956 W. P. (Rev.) 48 and P L D 1958 (W. P.) Rev.

Judgment & Decree

Horse‑breeding grantAllotment‑Recommendation of District Remount OfficerOrdinarily to be accepted. P L D 1956 W. P. (Rev.) 48 and P L D 1958 (W. P.) Rev. Habib Ismail for Petitioner. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Respondent. The facts of the case are given to the order of the learned Commissioner and need not be repeated here in detail. The Collector accepted the recommendation of the District Remount Officer in making the allotment of this horse‑breeding grant. Such recommendations are ordinarily to be accepted as would appeared from P L D 1956 (W. P.) Rev. 48 and P L D 1958 (W P.), Rev.

9. It appears that many persons were present at the time of hearing and the petitioner was not even an applicant for the grant. No illegality or material irregularity could be is that the petition is rejected. K.M.A. Petition rejected.