P L D 1962 W (PLP)
HASHAM ALI‑Petitioner Versus Subedar SAUDAGAR KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1962 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmed, Member Board of Revenue West Pakistan |
| Parties | HASHAM ALI‑Petitioner Versus Subedar SAUDAGAR KHAN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1962 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 1962 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmed, 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 1962 W (PLP) (HASHAM ALI‑Petitioner Versus Subedar SAUDAGAR KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar‑Appointment‑Non‑Muslim vacancy‑Determina tion of districts of origin in India of refugee tribes settled in '` estate‑Unnecessary.
Judgment & Decree
The Collector, Multan district; appointed the respondent Subedar Saudagar Khan as Lambardar of village Fatehpur in a vacancy which had occurred due to the migration of non -Muslims to India. Hasham Ali petitioner was one of the claimants for the post but the Collector held that he had no special merits worth consideration. He had not been recommended by any of the lower revenue officers either. The learned Com missioner who heard the appeal found himself in agreement with the Collector. The respondent Subedar Saudagar Khan is a man of substance being an owner of 32 acres of land in the Patti, is Middle pass and has worked satisfactorily as a temporary Lambardar since 1946. He has also considerable administrative experience being an Assessor, Member of the Market Committee etc. It would be going too much into details to determine from which part of India the various refugee tribes who have settled in this estate come from and fix that factor as one of the criteria for filling the post. Both the petitioner and the respon dent belong to the majority tribe of Rajputs and it would be drawing too fine a distinction to say that the Rajputs of the area to which the respondent originally belonged in India are in minority to the Rajputs of the area from where the petitioner originally came. I find myself in agreement with the views of the Collector and the learned Commissioner regarding the merits of the respondent and dismiss the revision petition in limine. Petition dismissed.