1988 PLP 484 (SCMR)
Subedar ASGHAR ALI — Petitioner Versus MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 484 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Subedar ASGHAR ALI — Petitioner Versus MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | ---Art.185(3)--Leave to appeal having been granted in other petitions to consider same question, leave granted in instant case also--Appeals directed to be heard together., (b) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 484 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: ---Art.185(3)--Leave to appeal having been granted in other petitions to consider same question, leave granted in instant case also--Appeals directed to be heard together., (b) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 484 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 484 (SCMR) (Subedar ASGHAR ALI — Petitioner Versus MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ashraf Wallah, Advocate Supreme Court, Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Qamaruddin Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.4.
- Date of hearing: 18th January, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From .the judgment dated 28-10-1987 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in Writ Petition No.744 of 1986). Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.804 of 1987 and Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.235-P of 1985 rel.
S.56--West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, R.19(2)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973) . Arts.185 & 199--Writ jurisdiction, exercise of--Lambardar, appointment of--Exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue authorities--Rule of primogeniture--Order of Board of Revenue set aside by High Court in writ jurisdiction--Leave to appeal granted to consider plea that the matter of appointment of Lambardar was one entirely for Revenue authorities to decide and High Court was not justified in interfering with order of the Board in writ jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The dispute in this petition for special leave to appeal relates to the post of Lambardar in Chak No.119/13-AL of Tehsil Chichawatni. The last holder of this office was one Wajid Ali. On his death a number of persons including the petitioner and respondent No.4 who was the son of Wajid Ali applied for the appointment. The Collector examined the merits of the candidates and offered the appointment to the petitioner. Respondent No.4 filed an appeal from the order of the Collector before the Commissioner. The Commissioner accepted the appeal and directed that in accordance with the principle of primogeniture, as incorporated in rule 19(2), West Pakistan Land Revenue Rule, 1968, respondent No.4 had the right to be appointed as Lambardar in the place of his father. The petitioner challenged the decision of the Commissioner in revision before the Board of Revenue. A learned Member in the Board of Revenue set aside the order of the Commissioner and restored that of the Collector on the ground that respondent No.4 was merely a child of six years of age. Respondent No.4 filed a review petition but this too was rejected by the Board. Respondent No.4 then invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the order of the Board. A learned Single Judge held that it was not open to the Court to overlook the rule of primogeniture; accordingly, he accepted the writ petition and declared the order of the Board to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is urged that the matter of appointment of Lambardar was one entirely for the Revenue authorities to decide and the High Court was not right in interfering with the order of the Board in writ jurisdiction. It is also pointed out that in some other petitions leave has already been granted to consider this question. In this context, learned counsel has referred to C . P . S . L . A . No.804 of 1987 and C.P.S.L.A. No.235-P of 1985.
3. As leave has been granted in two other petitions noted above to consider the same question, leave in this petition is also granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.2,
000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if necessary. Let all the three matters be heard together. In the meanwhile the operation of the order of the High Court is stayed. M.I./A-158/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.