P L D 1959 W (PLP)
ABDUL GHANI‑Petitioner Versus SHER MUHAMMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | ABDUL GHANI‑Petitioner Versus SHER MUHAMMAD‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Lambardari‑, (b) Lambardari‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Lambardari‑, (b) Lambardari‑ 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) (ABDUL GHANI‑Petitioner Versus SHER MUHAMMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Hassan Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Candidate previous Lambardar in India of two villages‑No ground for prescriptive superiority over rival who was Lambardar of one village. Candidates having been fined Rs. 5 for "refusal to get vaccinated"‑--Not sufficient justification for interference in revision.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Lambardari‑-- Candidates having been fined Rs. 5 for "refusal to get vaccinated"‑--Not sufficient justification for interference in revision. Muhammad Hassan Khan for Petitioner. The holdings of the two contestants are roughly similar, that of the petitioner being slightly larger. The respondent has been working as temporary Lambardar and in consequence there are some adverse reports against him also. But these adverse reports are, according to the Commis sioner's judgment, not of a serious nature. In the above circumstances, there is no justification for any interference with what the Collector and the Commissioner have l4 decided. The respondent was a previous Lambardar in India as much as the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner was Lambardar in two villages does not give him any prescriptive superiority. The fact that the respondent was fined Rs. 5 in 1953 for an offence under section 188, P. P. C. with reference to his "refusal to get vaccinated" does not, in my opinion, provide a sufficient justification for interfering in favour of the petitioner at the stage of revision. In the above circumstances, this petition for revision is dismissed without issuing notice to the other party. A. H. Petition dismissed.