P L D 1964 W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN‑Petitioner Versus RUSTAM KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1964 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN‑Petitioner Versus RUSTAM KHAN‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Lambardar, (b) Lambardar |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Lambardar, (b) Lambardar as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1964 W (PLP) (MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN‑Petitioner Versus RUSTAM KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saleem Chaudhri for Petitioner.
- The learned Additional Commissioner has held that the appel lant, apart from being an absentee, is a Lambardar of another village, namely Topi, district Mardan. Mr. Saleem Chaudhry, the learned Advocate for the appellant who argued this case before me stated that the appellant is a very big Zamindar of the estate and nobody has objected to his appointment as Lambardar.
Headnotes / Summary
‑Appointment of owner of more than one estates not sound.
Judgment & Decree
‑Appointment‑Absentee cannot be appointed, unless person of outstanding abilities and merits. (b) Lambardar
‑Appointment of owner of more than one estates not sound. Saleem Chaudhri for Petitioner. This case relates to the appointment of a Lambardar in village Khabal, District Hazara. The Collector, Hazara, appointed Muhammad Umar Khan, appellant, as a Lambardar but the learned Additional Commissioner, Peshawar set aside this appoint ment and remanded the case to the Collector for fresh appoint ment in accordance with rule 15 of the Land Revenue Rules. Mohammad Umar Khan has now preferred a second appeal, which is now under consideration. The learned Additional Commissioner has held that the appel lant, apart from being an absentee, is a Lambardar of another village, namely Topi, district Mardan. Mr. Saleem Chaudhry, the learned Advocate for the appellant who argued this case before me stated that the appellant is a very big Zamindar of the estate and nobody has objected to his appointment as Lambardar. The appellant who was present in person admitted before me that he does not reside in the estate to which the Lambardari belongs. Obviously there are no reasons for appointing him as a Lambardar of the estate in which he does not reside. I have held in a number, of cases that an absentee should not be appointed as a Lambardar unless he is a person of out‑standing ability and merits. The petitioner has not advanced any such claim except that he is a big landholder. Besides he is a Lambardar of another village and it will ordinarily be unsound to appoint a person as Lambardar of more than one estate. I would therefore decline to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Peshawar and dismiss this second appeal. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.