P L D 1959 W (PLP)
JALAL DIN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | JALAL DIN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 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 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: H. A. Majid, 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 1959 W (PLP) (JALAL DIN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Yahya for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar‑ Person holding property in estate and patti at time of appointment can be removed from Lambardariship if he is deprived of property subsequently.
Judgment & Decree
Person holding property in estate and patti at time of appointment can be removed from Lambardariship if he is deprived of property subsequently. Muhammad Yahya for Petitioner. It is stated that the property held by the respondent in the patti in dispute (or for that matter in this estate) was gifted to him by the deceased Lambardar who had been converted to Islam on the establishment of Pakistan. The Custodian has already granted a declaration to the effect that property was not evacuee property or, in other words, that the gift in favour of the respondent cannot be disputed. The petitioner, however, claims that he has moved for a review or modification of the order under the Evacuee Property Law and that his request is to be adjudged on the 11th May 1957, therefore, seeks a further adjournment of this case. I am not willing to grant an adjournment ground, because, as far as the Collector is concerned, the respondent held property in the estate and in the patti in at the time when he appointed him Lambardar. If this qualification is obviated in due course, action can be taken under the law in order to terminate the respondent's Lambardar ship. The petitioner cannot seek his substitution for the respon dent in the Lambardari appointment, because the petitioner is disqualified for the appointment. He has no holding in the patti in dispute. In the above circumstances, I dismiss this petition for revision without issuing notice to the other party. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.