P L D 1959 W (PLP)
KHAIR DIN‑Petitioner Versus NIAMAT KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. Z. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | KHAIR DIN‑Petitioner Versus NIAMAT KHAN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 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 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. Z. 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 1959 W (PLP) (KHAIR DIN‑Petitioner Versus NIAMAT KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Iftikhar Ahmad for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar ‑ Appointment ‑ Close relationship between Lambardars of two Pattis, daughter of one being married to son of the other‑No disqualification.
Judgment & Decree
The vacancy arose as a result of the migration of the non‑Muslim Lambardar. The tribal composition of the Patti is as follows: Community No. of families Area. Rajput ... 63 403 Arain ... 56 137 The petitioner is an Arain and has worked as a temporary Lambardar satisfactorily. Both the Naib Tehsildar and the Tehsildar recommended him. He owns 23 acres of land.
3. The respondent is a Rajput and has a hereditary claim. The Collector stated that he owns one acre of land which was inadequate as security for the Government demand. He over looked the fact that he had 10 acres of land in the other Patti. His total property according to the Commissioner is valued at Rs. 13,169 as against the Government demand of Rs. 12,942.
4. It was urged that a Rajput has been appointed in the other Patti and so an Arain should be appointed in this Patti. In view of the fact that the respondent has a hereditary claim, this consideration cannot hold good. Moreover the tribal com position of the other Patti is not before me.
5. The only other point raised at the time of arguments was that the daughter of the respondent is married to the son of Rehmat Khan, who has been appointed as Lambardar in the other Patti. It was argued that two Lambardars having close relations A could not be appointed as Lambardars according to the observa tions made in P L D 1957 W P (Rev.)
34. In the case to which that ruling relates the father of one party and the grand father of the other party had been appointed as Lambardars. That observation do not, therefore, apply to this case. In view of what is stated above there was no reasonable ground for the Collector to appoint the petitioner as a Lambardar. I do not find sufficient grounds for interference with the order passed by the learned Commissioner. The result is that the petition is rejected in limine. A. H. Petition rejected.