P L D 1959 (W (PLP)
SHER MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. Z. Khan, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | SHER MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD‑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: M. Z. Khan, 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) (SHER MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ashfaq Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
- Khawaja Abdur Rahim for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar ‑ Appointment ‑ Candidate bound down for keeping peace and convicted and fined Rs. 20 in a case‑Not to be appointed. P L D 1959 (W. P.) Rev. 62 rel. (b) Lambardar‑ Appointment‑Collector and Commissioner declaring both candidates unsuitable‑Case remanded.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Lambardar‑ Appointment‑Collector and Commissioner declaring both candidates unsuitable‑Case remanded. Ashfaq Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. Khawaja Abdur Rahim for Respondent. The number of Gujjars and Rajputs in this village is 73 and 64 respectively. The petitioner is a Rajput and the value of his holding is Rs. 8,035 which is inadequate as security for the Government demand of Rs. 10,801‑8‑
0. The petitioner was bound down to keep the peace. He was also convicted in a case and IA fined Rs.
20. In view of these facts it is not desirable to appointed him according to P L D 1959 W. P. Rev.
62. The respondent is a Gujjar and the value of his holding in this chak is Rs. 64, 6687. He too was convicted and fined Rs. 100 under the Excise Act. That being so he should also not be appointed according to P L D 1959 (W. P.) (Rev.)
62. The Collector's order shows that there were other candidate in this patti. His order also indicates that the question of the conviction of the respondent was not before him and so his order appointing him as Lambardar cannot be called reasonable. The order of the Commissioner shows that he was not sure whether the respondent had been convicted. It would thus appear that both the parties are unsuitable for appointment as Lambardar. The result is that the case is remanded for fresh disposal. K. M. A.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.