P L D 1966 W (PLP)
ABDUR REHMAN‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH RAKHA‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | ABDUR REHMAN‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH RAKHA‑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) (ABDUR REHMAN‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH RAKHA‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. M. Anwar for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Hafiz Qureshi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Revision‑Concurrent findings of fact by Collector and Commissioner‑Revision filed after 90 days‑Petition dismissed. (b) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Mere fact that candidate worked for some years as temporary Lambardar does not mean that he has acquired any right to such appointment.
Judgment & Decree
This order will dispose of the following two Revisions:‑ (i) Abdur Rehman v. Allah Rakha (Revision No. 1800 of 1963‑64). (ii) Barkat Ali v. Abdur Rehman (Revision No. 357 of 1964‑65). The two revisions have been filed against orders dated the 18th of February 1964, and the thirteenth of October 1964, passed by Commissioner, Multan, whereby the appeals preferred by the petitioners were rejected. The first revision relates to appointment of Lambardar in patti Harbans Singh, while the second is about the appointment of Lambardar in patti Birj Lal. The facts of the first revision are that when the question of appointment of a permanent Lambardar of this patti came up for consideration, five persons applied for the post. The Collector appointed Allah Rakha. Abdur Rehman went in appeal to the Commissioner, but it was rejected. Hence this revision. As regards the second revision the, vacancy arose on the migration of the non‑Muslim Lambardar, and for the appointment of a permanent Lambardar, 13 candidates came forward. The Collector ultimately appointed Abdur Rehman in this patti. Barkat Ali went in appeal to the Commissioner which was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. So far as the first revision is concerned, there is a concurrent finding of the learned Collector and the Commissioner. So far Allah Rakha is concerned, Abdur Rehman does not have superior claim and he was rightly ignored. Moreover, this revision was filed after' the expiry of 90 days from the date of the order passed by the learned Commissioner. Keeping these facts in view, I reject the revision. So far as the second revision is concerned, the petitioner belongs to the Gujar community. While Abdur Rehman respondent is from the majority of Arains. So far as other considerations mentioned in rule 15 of Land Revenue Rules are concerned, the only claim the petitioner can have is that he has been working as a temporary Lambardar for 14 years. That itself could not constitute such a right as would justify ignoring Abdur Rehman who has otherwise far superior claims. In these circumstances, this revision also fails and is rejected hereby. K. M. A. Revisions dismissed.