PLD 1959

P L D 1959 W (PLP)

MUHAMMAD BUX‑Petitioner Versus GHURFAN AHMAD‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Decided Date
Revision Side No. 57 of 1955‑56, decided on 1st December 1956. District Lyallpur.
Honorable Judges
H. A. Majid, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P L D 1959 W (PLP)
Forum / Court
Bench Members H. A. Majid, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
Parties MUHAMMAD BUX‑Petitioner Versus GHURFAN AHMAD‑Respondent
Primary Law Lambardar‑
💡 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: Lambardar‑ 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: H. A. Majid, 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) (MUHAMMAD BUX‑Petitioner Versus GHURFAN AHMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Lambardar‑

Representation

  • Abdur Rahim assisted by Aziz‑ud‑Din for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

AppointmentPerson having hereditary claim preferred. Petitioner in person.

Judgment & Decree

Petitioner in person. Abdur Rahim assisted by Aziz‑ud‑Din for Respondent. The petitioner's counsel is not present but he has argued on the following lines:‑ (1) The respondent is not residing in the village because he has undertaken work as Head Treasurer in the Treasuries of the district; and (2) The estate is not divided into sub‑divisions. The first argument does go in favour of the petitioner, but it appears that the duties of the respondent as contractor in the Treasuries do not demand his permanent absence from the village. The second argument is advanced by the petitioner in order to avoid his disqualification, because he has no land in the Patti in dispute. Even if the petitioner's argument were correct, the respondent has to be preferred to him, because he has hereditary claims for a Lambardari appointment. For the above reasons, I would not interfere in the appoint ment of the respondent initially ordered by the Collector and later confirmed by the Commissioner. The petition for revision is accordingly dismissed. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.