PLD 1957 W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus FARID BAKHSH‑Respondent
| Citation | PLD 1957 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus FARID BAKHSH‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in PLD 1957 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case PLD 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: PLD 1957 W (PLP) (MUHAMMAD BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus FARID BAKHSH‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Kh. Abdur Rahim for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Yaqub and Muhammad Sadiq for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Appointment‑Selection of collector duly approved by Commissioner‑Appointment not to be upset in revision by Board of Revenue.
Judgment & Decree
H. A. MAJID.‑
The petitioner and the respondent are both Arains. Neither has any hereditary claim for a Lambardari appointment. The petitioner emanated from Ludhiana whereas the respondent hails from Ferozepore. The petitioner claims superiority over the respondent for the following three reasons :‑ (1) The petitioner represents 80 settlers coming from his old district whereas the settlers coining from the Ferozapore district are only 75 ; (2) The petitioner held 118 kanals of land whereas the respondent holds only 52 kanals; and (3) The petitioner is a Matriculate whereas the respon dent is just able to sign his name. The respondent was recommended as the most suitable candidate by the Naib Tahsildar, Tahsildar and the Revenue Assistant. He was selected by the Collector and the Commis sioner refused to upset his appointment. I feel that I should not in revision introduce any change. I have laid down in some cases previously that at the stage of revision, the Board F of Revenue does not consider what selection would have been made if the Board of Revenue were initially making appoint ments as Collector. The result is that the petition for revision is dismissed. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.