P L D 1963 W (PLP)
GHULAM AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1963 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue West Pakistan |
| Parties | GHULAM AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN KHAN‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Lambardar, (a) Lambardar‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1963 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Lambardar, (a) Lambardar‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1963 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmad, 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 1963 W (PLP) (GHULAM AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Appointment‑Order of Collector reasonable ; confirmed by Commissioner‑Not to be interfered with in Revision. -‑Appointment‑Recommendations by subordi nate officers‑Mere opinions, have no evidentiary value.
Judgment & Decree
(a) Lambardar‑
Appointment‑Order of Collector reasonable ; confirmed by Commissioner‑Not to be interfered with in Revision. (b) Lambardar
‑Appointment‑Recommendations by subordi nate officers‑Mere opinions, have no evidentiary value. The Collector, Lyallpur, appointed Sultan Khan who belongs to the dominant tribe of Rajputs, is an ex‑Lambardar and a reasonably big land‑holder to a vacancy which had occurred due to the migration of Dasondha Singh, the non‑Muslim Lambardar, to India. There were other contestants but the Collector preferred Sultan Khan for the above reasons. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner Ghulam Ahmad who also belongs to the dominant tribe and is an ex‑Lambardar but a comparatively smaller land‑holder. The learned Commissioner declined to interfere and Ghulam Ahmad has come up in revision. The petition more or less consists of a repetition of the grounds of appeal which have already been considered by the learned Commissioner. As would be apparent from the facts given above the decision arrived at by the Collector is quite reasonable and I see no grounds to interfere. The petitioner claims that he has greater influence in the estate and for that reason was recommended by some of the revenue officers below but this ground by itself is not sufficient to justify interference in revision. It is for the Collector to consider the claims of the various candidates on the basis of recommendations made by the lower officers but these recommendations by themselves do not have any evidentiary value and are merely expression of opinion. The revision petition stands dismissed in limine. K. M. A. Revision dismissed