P L D 1959 (W (PLP)
SULEMAN‑Petitioner Versus SHAH MUHAMMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | X. A. Majid, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | SULEMAN‑Petitioner Versus SHAH MUHAMMAD‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 (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 1959 (W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: X. 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) (SULEMAN‑Petitioner Versus SHAH MUHAMMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ghulam Ali Alvi for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Ashfaq Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar‑Appointment‑Candidate having larger area and belonging to majority‑community‑Preferred to candidate having hereditary claim.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ashfaq Khan for Respondent. There is no doubt that the petitioner was hereditary claims for a Lambardari appointment whereas the respondent has none. But the petitioner has to lose ground to the respondent in this, particular case for the following reasons :‑ (1) The petitioner belongs to a minority community in this estate whereas the respondent represents the majority community. (2) The respondent has a larger area than the petitioner. The petitioner contests this statement but is not in a position to prove his allegation. (3) Ghulam Rasul, a Rajput candidate for this very appoint ment, was in any case preferable to the present petitioner and has withdrawn his candidature in favour of the respondent. The respondent is in every way fit to be a Lambardar. His only handicap is that he has no hereditary claim to this post. This handicap has, in my opinion, been satisfactorily removed by the fact that Ghulam Rasul prefers him to the present peti tioner as Lambardar of the estate. The petitioner states that the respondent's brother has become a Lambardar in the other path. This fact, however, does not justify any interference in the present case, because the petitioner will never be appointed as Lambardar so long as the said Ghulam Rasul is in existence. For the above reasons I dismiss this petition for revision. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.