P L D 1966 W (PLP)
IMAM BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus UMAR DIN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | IMAM BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus UMAR DIN‑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) (IMAM BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus UMAR DIN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Qamar‑ud‑Din for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Candidate owning no land in patti‑Not to be appointed‑ Punjab Land Revenue Rules, rr. 15 & 16(i) (c). Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Qamar‑ud‑Din for Petitioner. Respondent in person. This is a second appeal filed against an order, dated the 14th of November 1964, passed by Commissioner, Lahore Division, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent was accepted. The facts of the case are that, when the question of filling the vacancy caused by the migration of the non‑Muslim Lambardar came up for consideration, five candidates applied for the post. The Collector selected Imam Bakhsh in spite of the fact that he did not own any land in this patti. The respondent went in appeal to the Commissioner, who accepted it on the ground that Imam Bakhsh could not be appointed as a Lambardar, because he did not own any land in this patti. Hence this second appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. He has referred me to P L D 1964 W P (Rev.)
16. In P L D 1965 W P (Rev.) 21, I have respectfully differed from the view point of my learned predecessor in the 1964 ruling. The legal position is quite clear. Even if Imam Bakhsh was appointed as Lambardar under rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, he would be automatically dismissed under the provisions of Rule 16(i)(c). The learned Commissioner, was, therefore, perfectly justified in up setting the orders passed by the learned Collector. The learned counsel for the petitioner has suggested that the case should be remanded for finding out any other suitable Meo. I do not feel that such a step would be justified. For the vacancy, applications were invited and other Meos besides Imam Bakhsh applied for the post, but were not considered suitable by the Collector. There is, therefore, no justification for remanding the case. In these circumstances, I see no, justification for any interference. The second appeal fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.