P L D 1965 W (PLP)
SULTAN MUQARRAB‑Petitioner Versus SALAH‑UD‑DIN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SULTAN MUQARRAB‑Petitioner Versus SALAH‑UD‑DIN‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Lambardar |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Lambardar as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1965 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: P L D 1965 W (PLP) (SULTAN MUQARRAB‑Petitioner Versus SALAH‑UD‑DIN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Ismail Bhatti for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑Appointment‑Non‑resident candidate appointed by Collector‑Commissioner rejected appeal of rival candidate-- Non‑residence, held, not a ground for dismissal of a Lambardar under r. 16, Punjab Land Revenue Rules, read with r. 17(ii)(c).
Judgment & Decree
‑Appointment‑Non‑resident candidate appointed by Collector‑Commissioner rejected appeal of rival candidate-- Non‑residence, held, not a ground for dismissal of a Lambardar under r. 16, Punjab Land Revenue Rules, read with r. 17(ii)(c). Petitioner in person. M. Ismail Bhatti for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 18th of February 1964, passed by Additional Commissioner, Multan, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The facts of the case are that, when the question of filling up the post of Lambardar came up for consideration, the Collector considered the claims of the parties but appointed the respondent in spite of the fact that he was a non‑resident. The petitioner went in appeal to the Commissioner but it was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. The appointment in. this case has to be made under rule 17(ii) read with rule 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. There is a provision for ignoring the claims of an heir but that can be done only under sub‑rule (c) of rule 17(ii). The only drawback from which the respondent suffers is non‑residence but this is not a ground which would necessitate or justify the dismissal of a person from the office under rule
16. In these circumstances, I see no justification for any interference with the concurrent findings of the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner. The revision fails add is dismissed hereby. A. H. Petition dismissed.