P L D 1959 W (PLP)
TAJ MOHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus INAYAT BEG‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | TAJ MOHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus INAYAT BEG‑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) (TAJ MOHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus INAYAT BEG‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Yahya for Petitioner.
- Hussain Bakhsh and Zia Ullah for Ch. Chiragh Din for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardari
‑ Educated local candidate with considerable con nections with rural activities e.g. Co‑operation and Panchayats preferr ed over tribal or property qualifications in one of two Lambardaris, even though candidate being a lawyer was non‑resident.
Judgment & Decree
Hussain Bakhsh and Zia Ullah for Ch. Chiragh Din for Respondent. In this tarf, there are two Lambardaris vacated by evacuees. One of these has gone to Sikandar Beg, a Mughal, who has been allowed to remain Lambardar without any further contest. The other Lambardari was given to Ch. Muhammad Shafi by the order of the Collector dated 22‑2‑
56. Taj Muhammad and Inayat Beg appealed to the Commissioner and he decided on 16‑10‑56 to substitute Inayat Beg for Ch. Muhammad Shafi. Taj Muhammad is a biggest allottee of land in this estate. He represents the community of Pathans who are 4 in number and hold 77 acres. Muhammad Shafi is a Jat and that community consists of 7 holders of 54 acres. There are 30 Mughals holding 250 acres in this tarf. The effect of the Commissioner's interference is that both the evacuee Lambardaris have gone to Mughals. Ch. Muhammad Shafi is a local owner of land and his holding in the tarf is 14 acres whereas Inayat Beg's holding is only] 8 acres, according to the Collector, and is reported to have' increased recently to ten acres. Ch. Muhammad Shaft is a prominent citizen with considerable connections with rural activities like co‑operation and Panchayats. The drawback in this case is that he is practising as a lawyer at Gujranwala, which is 15 miles away from this estate. Inayat Beg is an illiterate person who is likely to serve as a mediocre Lambardar in this estate. Altogether, I think the Collector made the correct choice in this case in spite of the fact that Ch. Muhammad Shafi was not likely to be a permanent resident of the estate. The Collector was conscious of this handicap at the time when he made his selection. But it is a good thing that gentlemen of the traditions of Ch. Muhammad Shafi are willing to work as Lambardars. For the above reasons, I accept the petition of Ch. Muhammad Shaft and direct that he should be restored to the Lambardari appointment. The petition of Taj Muhammad Khan is infructuous and will be taken as dismissed. A. H. Order accordingly.