1989 PLP 1248 (SCMR)
ALI MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD ALI and 3 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1248 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ALI MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD ALI and 3 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1248 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1248 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1248 (SCMR) (ALI MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD ALI and 3 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Rashid Chughtai, Advocate instructed by Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 14th January, 1984 of Lahore High Court in W.P. No.118 of 1984). West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968‑‑ ‑‑‑R.17‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑Lambardar, appointment of‑‑High Court while dismissing Constitutional petition of petitioner took note of the aspects of the case that petitioner who was seeking appointment as Lambardar was already Lambardar of two other villages and reasons given by the Board of Revenue for not giving appointment to petitioner were substantial‑ Approach of High Court regarding exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in Lambardari case being unexceptionable, Supreme Court declined interference.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought, against the dismissal by the High Court, of a Constitutional petition which had arisen out of a Lambardari appointment case. The learned Judge in the High Court took note of two aspects of the case. One, that the petitioner who was seeking appointment as Lambardar "is Lambardar of two other villages already". And secondly, that the reason given by the learned Member, Board of Revenue for not appointing the petitioner cannot be regarded as in substantial. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner on both the questions noted above, we do not find any justification for interference as the approach of the High Court regarding its discretionary writ jurisdiction in Lambardari cases, is unexceptionable. Leave to appeal, therefore is refused. M.B.A./A‑498/S Petition dismissed.