P L D 1959 W (PLP)
REHMAT ULLAH‑Petitioner Versus NUR MUHAMMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | A. K. Malik, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | REHMAT ULLAH‑Petitioner Versus NUR 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: A. K. Malik, 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 NUR MUHAMMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Anwar Rehman for Petitioner.
- Syed Abdul Rashid for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar‑Appointment‑Non‑Muslim vacancy‑‑Not neces sarily to be filled by refugee.
Judgment & Decree
A Lambardari fell vacant in Chak No. 500/G.B., Tehsil Samundri, District Lyallpur, owing to the migration of a previous non‑Muslim Lambardar to India. The Collector decided to appoint Nur Muhammad, respondent, who is a local Jat as Lambardar in preference to Rehmat Ullah, petitioner, a Rajput refugee. In doing so, the fact that the petitioner was a refugee and had also hereditary claims was ignored. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, which was rejected on 18‑9‑1957. I have heard Mr. Anwar Rehman, Advocate for the petitioner and Syed Abdur Rashid, Advocate for the respondent. In this Patti there are 134 locals holding 212 acres of land as against only 14 refugees who have been allotted 107 acres of land. Although the vacancy occurred due to the migration of a non‑Muslim Lambardar, yet it was not incumbent on the Collector to necessarily choose a refugee to fill the vacancy as the major area in the Patti is not allotted to refugees. The appointment has to be made keeping in view the conditions mentioned in Rule 15 of the Land Revenue Rules and the best man should be appointed. The respondent represents the majority tribe of the Jats and also holds more land than the petitioner. The Collector has given sound reasons for preferring the respondent for this appointment and his choice has been upheld by the Commissioner: I do not find sufficient grounds for interference in revision and dismiss the petition. A.H. Petition dismissed.