P L D 1962 W (PLP)
ALLAH DITTA‑Appellant Versus FAIYAZ ALI‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1962 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmed, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA‑Appellant Versus FAIYAZ ALI‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1962 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 1962 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmed, 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 1962 W (PLP) (ALLAH DITTA‑Appellant Versus FAIYAZ ALI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Collector's decision not to be interfered with unless against law or perverse. (b) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Absentee not to be appointed unless there is outstanding justification‑Sarbarah to be from Lambardar's family.
Judgment & Decree
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Collector's decision not to be interfered with unless against law or perverse. (b) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Absentee not to be appointed unless there is outstanding justification‑Sarbarah to be from Lambardar's family. The Collector Jhang, had appointed petitioner Allah Ditta, a Jat, as Lambardar of Chak No. 232/J. B., in a vacancy caused by the migration of Gura Ditta Mat, the non‑Muslim lambardar to India. He had overlooked the claims of Fayyaz Ali respondent on the ground that he was employed in the Road Transport Board, which is an official organization, as their Manager at Lyallpur. The learned Commissioner intervened in appeal. He held that the mere fact that a person is employed as a Government as a Lambardar, in case he possesses all the requisite qualifications. Alla Ditta has now come up in second appeal. A second appeal is tenable only on a legal issue and the only point in this respect that has been urged before me is that it is settled law followed by Financial Commissioners and later on by Members of the Board of Revenue that the decision of a Collector in Lambardari cases should ordinarily be respected unless it is against the law or is otherwise perverse I would accept the principle relied on by the Commissioner in accepting the appeal, but would add a proviso namely, that an absentee should not ordinarily be appointed a Lambardar unless he is of such outstanding character and ability as to justify making an exception to the general principle. It has been brought to my notice in the present case that the respondent belongs to a very well known family of the province and his father had held positions of distinction and honour. The family also owns a major part of the estate. I would, for these reasons, consider it a fit case for making an exception and reject the appeal. I have no doubt that the Collector when accepting a sarbrah, if at all, will insist that he should be member of the Lambardar's family and not an employee. S. B. Order accordingly.