P L D 1966 W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD MUNIR‑Petitioner Versus SARDAR KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUNIR‑Petitioner Versus SARDAR KHAN‑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) (MUHAMMAD MUNIR‑Petitioner Versus SARDAR KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Dr. Javaid Iqbal for Petitioner.
- Iftikharul Haq for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar‑Appointment‑Temporary Lambardar cannot be ignored in appointing permanent Lambardar on ground of complaints 12 years old, for which suitable action had been taken against him.
Judgment & Decree
Dr. Javaid Iqbal for Petitioner. Iftikharul Haq for Respondent. This is a second appeal filed against an order, dated the 20th of March 1965, passed by Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent was accepted. The facts of the case are that the father of the respondent was a Lambardar against one of the three posts in this village. After his death, the respondent was appointed as a temporary Lambardar and has been working as such for the last seventeen or eighteen years. On the 2nd of October 1963, Sardar Khan applied for being appointed a Lambardar on a permanent basis. Applications were invited and the petitioner also applied as a candidate. The Collector ignored the respondent on the ground that there were complaints against him and the post was no longer hereditary. The petitioner was appointed as Lambardar. Sardar Khan respondent went in appeal to the Commissioner who accepted the appeal and appointed Sardar Khan as Lambardar. Hence this second appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that there were complaints against the respondent, but I find that all of them related to the year 1951 for which suitable action was taken against the respondent. After 1951, there have been no complaints and, in spite of the complaints, he was allowed to continue as a temporary Lambardar from 1951 onwards. It will not be fair to punish him again for what happened in 1951 and ignore his claims specially when there have been no complaints after 1951. I find that the learned Collector was influenced by the consideration that the Lambardar was no longer a hereditary office. No instructions were issued by Government nor were the rules amended. No importance can, therefore, be attached on such a consideration. The learned Commissioner interfered on the ground that nothing had been proved against the respondent. From the considerations mentioned above, it is clear that this interference was justified. I, therefore, see no necessity for any further interference. The second appeal fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.