P (PLP)
Jamadar MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑Respondent
| Citation | P (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Akhter Hussain, Financial Commissioner |
| Parties | Jamadar MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Akhter Hussain, Financial Commissioner.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P (PLP) (Jamadar MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- B. Z. Kaikaus, for Appellant.
- Muhammad Amin Khan, for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887)‑‑S. 28 and Rule 17 (1)‑Collector's choice should not ordinarily be interfered with.
Judgment & Decree
B. Z. Kaikaus, for Appellant. Muhammad Amin Khan, for Respondent. ORDER,‑This is a second appeal against the order of the Com missioner, Multan Division, dated 5th November 1950, by which the respondent was appointed as lambardar of Chak No. 487/EB, sub‑Tehsil Burewala, Tehsil Vihari, District Multan.
2. The facts of the case are that Nathe Khan, lambardar of the chak mentioned above died on 5th December 1946. Fifteen candidates applied for the post, but twelve either withdrew or did not contest. The remaining three were the parties to this appeal and one Muhammad Din. The Collector ruled out Muhammad Din on the ground that he was illiterate. The remaining two contestants who are parties in this appeal are the sons of the deceased lambardar but from the different mothers. The chak is mostly owned by Government and the appointment could therefore be made under rule 17 (i) of the Land Revenue Rules. The Collector appointed the appellant whose claims he found superior to the respondent in every respect. The learned Commissioner on appeal found that there had been a miscarriage of justice, saw no reason why, the appellant should have been given preference and set aside the order of the Collector.
4. I have heard arguments on both sides. I am unable to, find any infringement of the rules committed by the Collector nor do I see any reason why the Collector's order should be declared as perverse. The only reason that Muhammad Bashir has been preferred by the Commissioner is that he acted as Sarbarah for six years but during this period the appellant was serving in the army. The father was lambardar in two places and there is no reason why the eldest son, should not be the lambardar in two places as well. The appellant has, however, resigned from the Sialkot lambardari. Following there fore the well‑known rule of law that the Collector's choice in such cases should' not ordinarily be interfered with I accept the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner and uphold that passed by the Collector. Announced. K. M. A Appeal accepted.