PLD 1966 W (PLP)
SHAH MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑Respondent
| Citation | PLD 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | SHAH MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in PLD 1966 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case PLD 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: PLD 1966 W (PLP) (SHAH MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Nadir Khan for Petitioner.
- Ilyas Chaudhri for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Non‑cultivation of land by candidate on certain occasions would not justify ignoring his claims. (b) Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 24‑Cultivation other than self‑cultivation‑Breach capable of rectification.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Muhammad Nadir Khan for Petitioner. Ilyas Chaudhri for Respondent. This is a second appeal filed against an order dated the 6th of July 1965,, passed by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent was accepted. The facts of the case are that Khan Muhammad, previous Lambardar of the Chak, was sentenced to transportation for life and was dismissed. For filling up `the vacancy, applications were invited and four candidates including the parties came forward. The Collector selected appellant. He belonged to the majority community and, on other considerations also, deserved preference. The respondent went in appeal to the Commissioner and the appeal was accepted on the ground that Shah Muhammad was running a shop in another village and did not, on certain occasions, cultivate the land himself. Hence this second appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main question for consideration is whether the learned Commissioner was justified in interfering with the choice of the Collector. It is stated that the appellant has given over the shop to his brother, but even if he was running a shop, it was not such a disquali fication that all other claims of his should be ignored, specially when there was definite evidence to the effect that he was residing in the village. The learned counsel for the respondent has laid great stress on the fact that in 1962‑63, the appellant did not cultivate the land himself and has suggested that his land is liable for resumption. It is, however, established that, so far resumption has not taken place. Moreover, cultivation other than self- cultivation is a breach capable of rectification. Non‑cultivation by the appellant on certain occasions would not again, justify the ignoring of the other claims. The appellant belongs to the majority community and had been regularly collecting Government dues. On the other hand, the respondent was once tried and failed miserably. It is surprising that almost the entire village is against him and the inhabitants went so far as protesting in black and white against the respondent. Such a person cannot obviously be said to have any influence with the inhabitants of the Chak. In these circumstances, I accept the appeal, set aside the orders passed by the learned Commissioner and direct that the orders passed by the learned Collector shall stand and shall be implemented. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.