P L D 1966 W (PLP)
AHMED BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus Sub. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | L U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | AHMED BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus Sub. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 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 1966 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: L 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 1966 W (PLP) (AHMED BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus Sub. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Abdul Latif for Petitioner.
- Ch. Mahmood Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar‑(Government Chak)‑Death of appointee pending appeal against him‑Claims of all candidates to be considered while appointing successor.
Judgment & Decree
Lambardar‑(Government Chak)‑Death of appointee pending appeal against him‑Claims of all candidates to be considered while appointing successor. Mian Abdul Latif for Petitioner. Ch. Mahmood Khan for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 23rd of April 1965, passed by the Commissioner, Bahawalpur, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The facts of the case are that, when the question of the appointment of a permanent Lambardar came up for considera tion, three candidates applied for the post. The Collector selected Lt. Muhammad Khan, the father of the respondent. The petitioner went in appeal to the Commissioner, but it was rejected. Hence this Revision. During the pendency of the appeal before the Commis sioner, Lt. Muhammad Khan died and the Commissioner remarked that it would be for the Collector to select a successor to him in accordance with the rules. The obvious intention was that the appointment of the successor will be covered by rule 17 (i) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, because the whole of the Chak is owned by Government. It is not, however, quite clear from the order of the learned Commissioner and it has, therefore, become necessary to clarify that, when the question of appointing a successor of Lt. Muhammad Khan comes up for consideration, the claims of the respondent as well as the petitioner should be duly considered along with such other candidates as may apply for the post. K.M. A. Revision accepted.