P L D 1960 W (PLP)
KHUSHI MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus NAZAR KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1960 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. Z. Khan, Member Board of Revenue |
| Parties | KHUSHI MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus NAZAR KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1960 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 1960 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. Z. Khan, 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 1960 W (PLP) (KHUSHI MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus NAZAR KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- H. A. Rehman for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar‑Resignation‑Brought about under coercion Resignation not effected. (b) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Candidate having worked as temporary Lambardar, having hereditary claim and owning more land‑Preferred.
Judgment & Decree
The Commissioner has dealt with in detail with the manner in which the resignation of Gulzar Muhammad was brought about in this case, it is clear that Gulzar Muhammad was coerced to resign, as he did not make certain contributions to some schools. The Commissioner has rightly observed that such considerations should not influence decisions in Lambardari cases. A resignation so obtained is no resignation at all. The order of the Commissioner further shows that Gulzar Muhammad is head and shoulders above the appellant. Gulzar Muhammad has a hereditary claim, like the appellant, but holds 24 kanals of land, has worked as a temporary Lambardar and was recommended by all the Revenue Officers. According to the Commissioner's order the appellant has only 8 kanals of land. The appellant has contended that he has 30 bighas of land and that Gulzar Muhammad has 6 big has. He has not substantiated this contention nor it was pressed at the time of arguments. Similarly the appellant's contention that his conviction in East Punjab was set-aside on appeal was not mentioned at the time of arguments and no material has been produced in support of that contention. It would thus appear that there was no reasonable ground for appointing the appellant as Lambardar and that thus was ample justification for the order passed by the learned Commis sioner. The result is that the appeal is dismissed do limine. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.