P L D 1957 W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SARWAR‑Petitioner Versus UMAR DIN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1957 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SARWAR‑Petitioner Versus UMAR DIN‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Lambardar‑, (b) Lambardar‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1957 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 1957 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 1957 W (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SARWAR‑Petitioner Versus UMAR DIN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate assisted by Muhammad Akbar Cheema, Advocate for Respondent,
Headnotes / Summary
Appointment‑‑Candidate with hereditary claim should be preferred.
Appointment‑Mere fact that candidate is educated is no ground for preference over illiterate candidate.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner was the selection of the Collec tor but the Commissioner intervened and preferred the respondent to him. The respondent was admittedly a Lambardar in India before his migration to Pakistan. The petitioner has a very devious claim to a hereditary Lambardari. He claims that‑ (1) his grand‑father's younger brother Umar Din was a Lambardar at the time of migrations. (2) The said Umar Din had been appointed Lambardar because his elder brother had died during the life‑time of his father. (3) Umar Din's grand‑son Muhammad Ashraf Pervez has stated that the Lambardari really lies in the line of the petitioner and (4) There is evidence by way of affidavits in support of what is stated above. There is one weakness in this claim of the petitioner Muhammad Ashraf Pervez has not stated that he would never seek a Lambardari in Pakistan on the basis of his hereditary claim. He has younger brothers who are minors and they have not made any statements of that kind. In these circum stances, it cannot be stated with any degree of certainty that the petitioner has established his hereditary claim to a Lambardari post. I would accordingly prefer the respondent to him. The Collector had noticed that the petitioner's holding was 34 kanals whereas the respondent's holding was 52 kanals. The Collector declared that 52 kanals were not adequate for the security of the Government demand. He, however, failed to make any statement regarding the ade quacy or otherwise of the petitioner's 34 kanals. This respect of the case would justify interference by the Commissioner. There is no doubt that the petitioner attempted to improve his status as a land‑holder between the date on which the Collector appointed him as Lambardar and the date on which the Commissioner heard the appeal against that appointment. To my mind, the alleged purchase of more than 100 kanals of land is of a suspicious character but even if I accepted the transfer as genuine, I would not be inclined to prefer the petitioner to the respondent for this Lambardari appointment. There is no doubt that the petitioner is young and educated. We have, however, a number of illiterate Lambardars and we may as well accept the present respondent as an addition in that category. For the above reasons, I dismiss this petition for revision. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.