P L D 1960 W (PLP)
ALI SHER KHAN‑Appellant Versus LASHKAR KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1960 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. Z. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | ALI SHER KHAN‑Appellant Versus LASHKAR KHAN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1960 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 1960 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. Z. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1960 W (PLP) (ALI SHER KHAN‑Appellant Versus LASHKAR KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rao Muhammad Ishfaq for Appellant.
- Javed Iqbal for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar‑Residing in adjoining Chak‑Not absentee.
Judgment & Decree
Lambardar‑Residing in adjoining Chak‑Not absentee. Rao Muhammad Ishfaq for Appellant. Javed Iqbal for Respondent. The only law point urged in this case at the time of arguments was that a person residing in an adjoining Chak should be treated as an absentee. P L D 1959 W. f'. (Rev.) 151, was cited in support of this contention. That ruling is not applicable to the present case because it does not deal with the case of a person residing in an adjoining Chak. Residence in an adjoining Chak was considered in P L D 1959 W. P. (Rev.) 135, in which it was observed that "we insist on resi dence of a Lambardar within the estate merely because we feel that a non‑resident Lambardar will not be able to look after the affairs of the estate and will not be available when Government officers visit the estate. If a Lambardar lives on the outskirts of a particular estate we cannot say that h; would not be able to look after the affairs of the estate or will not be able to be present when Government officers visit he estate". The Commissioner has, therefore, rightly come to the conclu sion that the respondent cannot be treated as an absentee. The result is that the appeal is dismissed. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.