P L D 1965 W (PLP)
YAR MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AKBAR‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | YAR MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AKBAR‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Lambardar, (a) Lambardar |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Lambardar, (a) Lambardar as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1965 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 1965 W (PLP) (YAR MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AKBAR‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sanaullah for Petitioner.
- Akhtar Ahmad Shah for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑Appointment‑Police reports not' satisfactory with regard to candidate appointed by Collector‑Such objection not of any `great' importance in a locality inhabited by criminal tribes.
Judgment & Decree
‑Appointment‑Allegation that Lambardar appointed was not paying land revenue "regularly"‑Matter, held, merits independent departmental consideration by Collector Rival candidate cannot derive any benefit from such objection. Sanaullah for Petitioner. Akhtar Ahmad Shah for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 17th of December 1963, passed by the Commissioner, Multan Division, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as a Lambardar by the Collector. 'The petitioner went in appeal but it was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. It has been urged before me that the police reports against the respondent are not satisfactory. This point was examined by the learned Commissioner and it was realized that, because the inhabitants of Chak belonged to the criminal tribes, no great importance could be attached to such reports. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that, since his appointment, the respondent has not been paying the land revenue regularly. This is a point which has to be considered by the Collector independently of the claim of the petitioner. Even if this allegation is true, it is departmental matter and the petitioner cannot derive any benefit therefrom. In these circumstances, I see no justification for any interference with the concurrent findings of the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. A. H. Petition dismissed.