P L D 1966 W (PLP)
ABDUL GHANI-Petitioner Versus REHMAT ALI — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | ABDUL GHANI-Petitioner Versus REHMAT ALI — 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: 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 1966 W (PLP) (ABDUL GHANI-Petitioner Versus REHMAT ALI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar-Appointment-Lambardars in other two pattis belonging to Awan community-Awans pre-dominating community in third patti-Appointment to be based on administrative considerations. (b) Lambardar-Appointment-Candidate working as temporary Lambardar-Cannot claim as of right to be appointed permanent Lambardar. (c) Practice-Concurrent finding of fact by Collector and Commissioner-Not interfered with. Petitioner in person. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
(c) Practice-Concurrent finding of fact by Collector and Commissioner-Not interfered with. Petitioner in person. Respondent in person. This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 15th of August 1964, passed by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts of the case are that the post of the Lambardar fell vacant on account of the migration of the non-Muslim Lambardar, and, when the question of appointing a permanent Lambardar came into consideration, three candidates, including the parties, applied for it. The Collector appointed Rehmat Ali respondent. Abdul Ghani went in appeal and produced a statement showing a different composition of the various tribes before the Commissioner, who accepted the appeal and remanded the case. Afterward: on remand, the Collector again appointed Rehmat Ali. The petitioner went in appeal, but his appeal was rejected by the Commissioner. Hence this revision. I have heard the parties. The main contention of the petitioner is that, as there are Awans in the other two pattis, this vacancy should go to the Arains. So far as this patti is concerned, the Awans are in majority and it was on this conside ration that Collector appointed the respondent. The question as to whether this Lambardan should go to an Awan or an Aria n is an administrative one and the Collector has based his selection on the consideration that as Awans are the pre‑dominating community in this patti, this Lambardari should go to an Awan. This decision has been confirmed by the learned Commissioner. The petitioner has also urged that he has been working satisfactorily as temporary Lambardar since 1947. This contention cannot in itself constitute a right for an appointment as a permanent Lambardar. I have considered all the aspects of the case, but see n justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of the learned Commissioner and the learned Collector. The revisions fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.