P L D (Rev (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ALI‑Petitioner Versus (1) THE CROWN (2) HAJI AHMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI‑Petitioner Versus (1) THE CROWN (2) HAJI AHMAD‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Lambardari |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Lambardari as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D (Rev (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ALI‑Petitioner Versus (1) THE CROWN (2) HAJI AHMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raza Hussain for Petitioner's counsel.
Headnotes / Summary
‑Application for‑Made after Tahsildar and Revenue Assistant had submitted their recommendations --Ignored. The Tahsildar invited applications for a Lambardari vacancy by a certain date. An application was made direct to the Collector after that date and, in fact, after the Tahsildar and Revenue Assistant had submitted their recommendations to the Collector, which application was sent on to the Tahsildar, and in the meantime the Collector appointed the only other candidate in the field to the vacancy: Held, that the disputing applicant's candidature started after the appointed date and the fact that the application was put in, before the Collector had passed final orders, could not help the petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
H. A. MAJID.‑The petitioner claims that he had applied for this Lambardari appointment and even then the Collector says that the respondent was the only candidate for the post. On looking through the record, I find that the notice issued by the Tahsildar required applications to be submitted by 18th May 1955. The Tahsildar made his recommendations on 20th June 1955. The Revenue Assistant made his final recommendations on 29th June 1955. It appears that the petitioner's application dated 26th June 1955 was handed in at the Deputy Commissioner's office on 30th June 1955. It was sent to the Tahsildar on 1st July 1955. The Tahsildar sent the papers back to the Collector on 13th July 1955 saying that his recommendations had already been submitted to the Collector. The Collector bad fixed 19th July 1955 for deciding the case. He, however, took up the file for his consideration on 6th July 1955 on the request of the respondent in this behalf on account of the fact that he was the only candidate for the post. In the above circumstances, it appears that the petitioner's candidature started after the appointed date. It was even after the date on which the local officers had submitted their recommendations to the Collector. The fact that the application was put in before the Collector had passed final orders cannot help the petitioner. In the circumstances explained above. I dismiss this petition for revision without issuing notice to the other party. A. H. Petition rejected.