P L D 1966 W (PLP)
KALLU KHAN‑Petitioner Versus ATA MUHAMMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | KALLU KHAN‑Petitioner Versus ATA MUHAMMAD‑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) (KALLU KHAN‑Petitioner Versus ATA MUHAMMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Ismail Bhatti and Zulfiqar Ali for Petitioner.
- Parvaiz for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Withdrawals from candida ture‑May be taken into consideration to judge influence of candidates. (b) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Mere fact that candidate was given Dhal Bachh for number of years‑Does not constitute any right for appointment as Lambardar. (c) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Recommendations by subor dinate officers may be accepted or rejected by Collector. (d) Practice‑Concurrent findings of fact by Collector and Commissioner‑Not interfered with.
Judgment & Decree
M. Ismail Bhatti and Zulfiqar Ali for Petitioner. Parvaiz for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 5th of January 1965, passed by Commissioner, Multan, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The facts of the case are that, when the question of appointing a temporary Lambardar came up for consideration, eight persons applied for the post including the parties. The Collector, after taking all the factors into consideration appointed Ata Muhammad as a Lambardar. The petitioner went in appeal to the Commissioner, but it was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. His first objection is that the respondent improved his position in respect of property by getting more area in exchange from his brother. There is nothing on record to substantiate this allegation. I, therefore, see no force in this contention. A great deal of stress has been laid on the fact that the learned Commissioner took up the question of withdrawals into consideration while rejecting the appeal. It has been urged that the office of a Lambardar is of an executive nature and has not to be filled on the principles akin to election. I find that this was one of the considerations by which the learned Commis sioner adjudged whether the respondent or the petitioner had more influence, but I do not see any such irregularity in his doing so as would justify interference. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the petitioner was given Dhal Bachh for a number of years, This in itself does not constitute any right. It has also been urged that the local officers recommended the petitioner and the learned Collector ignored their recom mendations. These recommendations amount to an opinion' only and a higher authority can accept or reject such recom mendations and it is not necessary to give any detailed reasons for doing so. In these circumstances, I see no justification for any, interference with the concurrent findings of the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K.M.A Revision dismissed.