P L D 1960 W (PLP)
GHULAM RASUL‑Appellant Versus HASSAN MUHAMMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1960 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. Z. Khan, Member Board of Revenue |
| Parties | GHULAM RASUL‑Appellant Versus HASSAN MUHAMMAD‑Respondent |
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) (GHULAM RASUL‑Appellant Versus HASSAN MUHAMMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Barkat Ali for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar‑Appointment‑Commissioner remanding case Order of remand based on good reasons‑No interference.
Judgment & Decree
Lambardar‑Appointment‑Commissioner remanding case Order of remand based on good reasons‑No interference. Barkat Ali for Appellant. The Collector appointed the appellant as Lambardar, but on appeal the case has been remanded for fresh disposal. The appellant had contested the observation of the Commissioner, that 75 per cent of the evacuee area had not yet been confirmed in the village. The order of the learned Commissioner shows that he has remanded this case not only on this ground but also on a number of other important grounds. That being so, that order cannot be challenged on this ground. The Commissioner has given very good reasons for remanding the case and I do not find any justification for interference at this stage. It may be observed that the Collector has not given adequate particulars in his order and so it is difficult to come to a con clusion without consulting the record. The tribal composition of the village, the tribe of the parties, the holdings of the parties and other relevant factors should be given in such cases. Without these particulars it is not possible to dispose of the appeal unless the record is called for. In view of the fact that the learned Commissioner has given adequate reasons for remanding the case, I do not find sufficient justification for any interference. The result is that the appeal is dismissed in limine. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.