P L D 1962 W (PLP)
FATEH DIN‑Appellant Versus MOOR MUHAMMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1962 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmed, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | FATEH DIN‑Appellant Versus MOOR MUHAMMAD‑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) (FATEH DIN‑Appellant Versus MOOR MUHAMMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Jabbar for Petitioner.
- Abdul Latif for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar‑Appointment‑Extent of property in estate, one of the factors to be taken into consideration‑Collector appointing candidate as Lambardar after considering all matters Commissioner not to upset order of Collector and appoint candidate holding larger area. Mashir Ali v. Chiragh Khan P L D 1950 Ph. (Rev.) 925 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Mashir Ali v. Chiragh Khan P L D 1950 Ph. (Rev.) 925 rel. Abdul Jabbar for Petitioner. Abdul Latif for Respondent. This is a second appeal regarding the Lambardari of Chak No. 158‑A/10‑R, District Multan. The Collector on the recom mendations of the officers below appointed the appellant Fateh Din on the ground of his personal services ; he was an ex‑soldier having served as a Havaldar for a considerable period and had acted satisfactorily as a temporary Lambardar. The learned Commissioner intervened in appeal in favour of the respondent Nur Muhammad on the sole ground that he was the owner of a considerably larger area. Fateh Din has come up in second appeal. The main point that has been urged is that the mere fact that Nur Muhammad was the owner of a much larger holding than Fateh Din, is not sufficient for setting aside the latter's appointment. Reliance in this connection is placed on Mashir Ali v. Malik Chirag Khan (P L D 1950 Ph. (Rev.) 950) a ruling which has been consistently followed. Under Land Revenue Rule 14 extent of property in the estate possessed by a candidate is only one of the factors which have to be taken into consideration when making the first appointment of a headman. There are other factors, viz., services rendered to the State, his personal influence, character and ability etc. In the particular circumstances of this case the Collector's choice was quite reasonable and he exercised his discretion taking into account all the matters which he ought to have considered as he was in the know of the holdings of the two candidates. This was a matter to which he has devoted considerable attention and space in his order, and his decision should have been allowed to stand the mere fact that the respondent had a large holding was not enough reason for the Commissioner to have it set aside. I would, therefore, accept the appeal and restore the order passed by the Collector in favour of Fateh Din. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.