P L D 1959 W (PLP)
REHMAT ULLAH‑Petitioner Versus FAIZ MUHAMMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | REHMAT ULLAH‑Petitioner Versus FAIZ MUHAMMAD‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Lambardar‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Lambardar‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: H. A. Majid, 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 1959 W (PLP) (REHMAT ULLAH‑Petitioner Versus FAIZ MUHAMMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdur Rahim for Petitioner.
- Aziz Din for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Appointment‑--Temporary Lambardar appointed Lambardar‑--Collector did not regard his previous work as unsatis factory‑--Nature of his work as temporary Lambardar cannot be made use of as argument against him‑--No adequate justification for Commissioner to upset appointment‑--Order of Commissioner liable to be set aside in revision.
Judgment & Decree
Aziz Din for Respondent. Both the parties possess a hereditary title to a Lambardari appointment. The Collector had selected the present petitioner, but the Commissioner, interfered in favour of the present respondent on the following grounds:‑ (1) That the petitioner had defaulted as a temporary Lambardar and had to be arrested on two occasions; and (2) That in two criminal cases, he was a prosecution witness and in fact a complainant and those cases had to be dropped. In addition, the respondent's counsel mentions to‑day that the defaults which led to the arrest of the present petitioner were in respect of large amounts. The Collector must be assumed to have taken the above factors into account at the time when he passed his order dated 25‑4‑56 appointing the present petitioner as Lambardar. The matters referred to by the Commissioner do not act as a disqualification. There can be a difference of opinion regarding the question whether a particular temporary Lambardar's record of work was satisfac tory or not. But if the Collector does not regard the work as unsatisfactory, the nature of his work cannot be made use of as an~, argument against him. The Commissioner's argument regarding a substantial number of Khewatdars, originally belonging to the petitioners' village, being related to the respondent does not sound convincing. Altogether, I am satisfied that the Commissioner did not have adequate justification for upsetting the appointment of the presently petitioner. I, therefore, accept this petition for revision and direct that the petitioner should be restored to his Lambardari appointment. K. M. A. Petition accepted.