P L D 1965 (W (PLP)
LAL KHAN‑Appellant Versus NAZIR AHMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1965 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | LAL KHAN‑Appellant Versus NAZIR AHMAD‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Lambardar‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 (W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Lambardar‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1965 (W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1965 (W (PLP) (LAL KHAN‑Appellant Versus NAZIR AHMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munir Ahmad for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Appointment‑Jammu and Kashmir refugee perma nently settled in village‑Can be considered for appointment as Lambardar if otherwise entitled on merits.
Judgment & Decree
Appointment‑Jammu and Kashmir refugee perma nently settled in village‑Can be considered for appointment as Lambardar if otherwise entitled on merits. Afrasiab Khan for Appellant. Munir Ahmad for Respondent. The main point involved in this second Lambardari appeal relating to district Sialkot is whether a Jammu and Kashmir refugee even if permanently settled is not to be considered for appointment as a Lambardar. As observed by the learned Commissioner, Lahore, Jammu and Kashmir refugees with a verified claim are now permanently settled for all practical purposes. Undoubtedly there is a condition attached to their allotments that on settlement of the Kashmir issue they would either pay the price of the land on which they have been settled or they would surrender it and return to Jammu and Kashmir. This condition is more technical in nature than practical, and it would be prima facie unjust to deprive these refugees of Lambardaris on this ground alone. The prospects of their going back do not appear to be so definite and certain as to disentitle them to consideration in Lambardari cases if otherwise entitled on merits. The Collector had appointed the petitioner who is a Jammu and Kashmir refugee but the learned Commissioner set aside the appointment on the sole ground that a Jammu and Kashmir refugee even if permanently settled cannot be considered in law for these posts. For the reasons given above I do not subscribe to this legal proposition accordingly. I would accept the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Commissioner and restore the order of the Collector. S. Q. Appeal accepted.