P L D 1959 W (PLP)
NAWAB BEG‑ — Petitioner Versus ALI NAWAZ‑ — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | NAWAB BEG‑ — Petitioner Versus ALI NAWAZ‑ — 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: H. A. Majid, 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) (NAWAB BEG‑ — Petitioner Versus ALI NAWAZ‑ — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Miss Zohra Naseem for Petitioner in Case No. 57.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑ Two posts‑--Rajputs in majority ‑Holdings of minority tribes not large enough‑Both posts may go to Rajputs. (b) Lambardar--‑Appointment‑ Mere fact that a candidate's holdings are more than that of other candidate is no ground to give preference to such candidate. Muhammad Akbar Khan for Nawab Beg. S. A. Latif for Muhammad Rafique. Asad Hussain for Abdul Hamid. Muhammad Iqbal Khan for Sharafat Beg. Ghulam Haider Shah and Abdur Rahim for Ali Nawaz Khan and Muhammad Saleem.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. Latif for Muhammad Rafique. Asad Hussain for Abdul Hamid. Miss Zohra Naseem for Petitioner in Case No. 57. Muhammad Iqbal Khan for Sharafat Beg. Ghulam Haider Shah and Abdur Rahim for Ali Nawaz Khan and Muhammad Saleem. This order will dispose of four cases of revision Nos. 5, 19, 43 and 57 of 1956‑57 and one case of appeal No. 6 of 1956‑57. This last case will also be treated as a case of revision, because appeals against the orders of Commissioners are now‑a‑days possible only on points of law. Ali Nawaz Khan and Sharafat Beg were appointed Lambar dars of this estate by the order of the Collector dated 6‑6‑56. A number of appeals were lodged before the, Commissioner and he decided on 20‑8‑56 that Ali Nawaz Khan's appointment should be confirmed, and that Sharafat Beg, should be replaced by Muhammad Saleem as the second Lambardar. The first question which is to be determined is whether one of the two Lambardaris should go to a non‑Rajput. The Rajputs in the number of allottees are more than half and in the extent of their holding they are 2/3rds of the total. The remaining 1/3rd of the area is held by four classes, viz. Mughals, Dogars, Arains and others. The Mughals are shown as holding 23 allotments covering 247 acres. I am inclined to agree with the Commissioner that their numbers and holdings are not large enough to justify the transfer of the second Lambardari appointment from the majority tribe (Rajput) to one of the minority tribes. For these reasons, the petitions of Nawab Beg and Sharafat Beg have to be dismissed. The two persons who at present hold the Lambardari appointments were both Lambardars in India and are both literate. Their holdings are sufficiently large. The Rajput petitioners who want me to replace these appointments are in no way better than these two. The holdings of Muhammad Rafique and Allah Diya are larger than those of .Ali Nawaz Khan and Muhammad Saleem. But this is not a consideration which would justify interference in revision. Ali Nawaz Khan is rather old. But has a number of grown up sons. He should not now lose his status as Lambardar especially as he has been a Zaildar in India before migration to Pakistan. In the above circumstances, I would leave the two respondents in enjoyment of the Lambardari appointments which have been conferred on them. I accordingly dismiss all the five petitions for revision. K. M. A. Petitions dismissed.