P L D 1965 W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑Petitioner Versus MIR DAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑Petitioner Versus MIR DAD‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Lambardar |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Lambardar as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. U. Khan, 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 1965 W (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑Petitioner Versus MIR DAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Siddiq for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑Appointment‑Son of pre‑deceased son of deceased Lambardar appointed by Collector‑Rival candidate's appeal succeeding before Commissioner‑Board restored order of Collector in view of decision in P L D 1953 Pb. (Rev.)
6. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
‑Appointment‑Son of pre‑deceased son of deceased Lambardar appointed by Collector‑Rival candidate's appeal succeeding before Commissioner‑Board restored order of Collector in view of decision in P L D 1953 Pb. (Rev.)
6. Ch. Muhammad Siddiq for Petitioner. Respondent in person. This is an appeal filed against an order dated the 7th of January 1963, passed by Commissioner, Rawalpindi, whereby he accepted the appeal filed by the respondent and appointed him as a Lambardar. The facts of the case are that, on the death of Draz Khan Lambardar, Muhammad Aslam son of the predeceased son (Hukam Dad) was appointed as Lambardar by the Collector. Mir Dad went in appeal to the Commissioner who accepted it. Hence this appeal. I partly heard the arguments on 4‑5‑1965 and have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner today. The learned counsel for the respondent is absent in spite of the fact that he was present on, the last bearing. P L D 1953 Pb. (Rev.) 6 is on all fours with the present case and there appears to be no necessity for referring the matter to the Full Board. In these circumstances, I accept the appeal, set aside the order's passed by the learned Commissioner and direct that the order of the learned Collector, whereby Muhammad Aslam was appointed as a Lambardar, shall stand. A.H. Appeal accepted.