2000 PLP 675 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHAH DIN‑‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 675 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | Shahzad Hassan Pervez, Member (Judicial‑I) |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISMAIL ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHAH DIN‑‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 675 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 675 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: Shahzad Hassan Pervez, Member (Judicial‑I).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 675 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ISMAIL ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHAH DIN‑‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Rashid Gujjar for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Farooq Qureshi Chishti for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVH of 1967)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.36‑‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, R.17‑‑‑Appointment of Lambardar‑‑‑Essentially was an administrative measure and no claim to that office could be laid as of right. 1972 SCMR 253; 1971 SCMR 719 and PLD 1964 W.P (Rev.) 128 ref. (b) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVH of 1967)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.36‑‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, Rr.17 & 22‑‑ Appointment of Lambardar‑‑‑Office of Lambardar was in the nature of an agent of the Government to perform prescribed functions‑‑‑Appointment or one person as Lambardar by Authority could not in law be considered as infringement of rights of another aspirant who could have equal qualifications.
Judgment & Decree
1972 SCMR 253; 1971 SCMR 719 and PLD 1964 W.P (Rev.) 128 ref. (b) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVH of 1967)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.36‑‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, Rr.17 & 22‑‑ Appointment of Lambardar‑‑‑Office of Lambardar was in the nature of an agent of the Government to perform prescribed functions‑‑‑Appointment or one person as Lambardar by Authority could not in law be considered as infringement of rights of another aspirant who could have equal qualifications. Ch. Abdul Rashid Gujjar for Petitioner. Muhammad Farooq Qureshi Chishti for Respondent. Rule 17 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968 prescribes matters to be considered for first appointment to the office of Lambardar. This rule provides guidelines to District Collector for appointment of a suitable person to perform duties of Lambardar of an estate or sub‑estate as laid down in Rule 22 of the Rules ibid.
2. The appointment of Lambardar, as has been held in 1972 SCMR 253, 1971 SCMR 719 and PLD 1964 W.P (Rev.) 128 is essentially an administrative measure and no claim to that office could be laid as of right.
3. Muhammad Ismail filed titled revision petition against the order of Commissioner, Sargodha Division, dated 18‑3‑1993. During the pendency of this revision, he died. The point which emerged thereafter was whether upon death of revision petitioner, his heirs could step into the shoes of the deceased in order to pursue the revision petition. The rules referred to at para. I clearly state that office of Lambardar is in the nature of an agent of the Government to perform laid down functions. Appointment of one person as Lambardar by District Collector cannot in law be considered as infringement of rights of another aspirant‑who may have equal qualifications. Since no legal right had accrued to Muhammad Ismail by merely filing appeal against order of District Collector whereby the respondent was appointed as Lambardar, therefore, his heirs will not be deemed to have the right to sue upon the death of the petitioner. Resultantly the revision petition abates which is accordingly ordered. H.B.T./3/P.(Rev.) Petition abated.