P L D 1966 W (PLP)
M. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑Petitioner Versus BHEEKHA‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | M. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑Petitioner Versus BHEEKHA‑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) (M. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑Petitioner Versus BHEEKHA‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Shafaq Mufti for Petitioner.
- Ch. Fazal Muhammad for Respondent,
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar ‑‑ Appointment ‑ Successor of dismissed Lambardar to be appointed under rule 17 (u) of Punjab Land Revenue Rules. (b) Lambardar ‑ Appointment ‑ Old man's appointment confirmed by Commissioner‑Not interfered with.
Judgment & Decree
M. Shafaq Mufti for Petitioner. Ch. Fazal Muhammad for Respondent, This is a revision filed against an order dated the 3rd of June 1964, passed by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts of the case are that before 1931, Ismail was a Lambardar of this village. He was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and was dismissed. He was succeeded by Bheekha, who was also known as Muhammad Saleem. Bheekha gifted the whole of his property to his grand daughters and ceased to hold land in the estate. He was, therefore, dismissed on the 3rd of May 1961. When the question of filling up the vacancy came up for consideration, 7 candidates applied for the post. The respondent happened to be the real brother of Bheekha and as the appointment had to be made under rule 17 (ii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, the Collector appointed the respondent. The petitioner went in appeal to the Commissioner but the appeal was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The previous stand that the Lambardari was caused by the migration of a non‑Muslim Lambardar, was found to be wrong, because from the very beginning a Muslim Lambardar has been working in the village. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that this was a case in which appointment should have been made under rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. I am afraid I cannot accept this contention. The vacancy arose as a result of dismissal of Bheekha and a successor has to be found. Therefore, the case clearly falls under rule 17 (ii). Under this rule the legal heir has to be appointed unless he is found to be suffering from any disqualification. The only disqualification which the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged is that the respondent is too old to be able to discharge the duties of a Lambardar and he has relied on rule 17 (ii) (c) read with rule 16 (i) (c). In such cases, the discretion rests with the Collector. In spite of the present age of the respondent, the Collector considered him to be able to discharge the duties of al Lambardar and appointed him as such. This discretion was further confirmed by the learned Commissioner. Under these circumstances, I see no justification for any interference with the concurrent findings of the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.