P L D 1962 W (PLP)
ASLAM HUSSAIN SHAH‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1962 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | A. M. Khan Leghari Member Board of Revenue West Pakistan |
| Parties | ASLAM HUSSAIN SHAH‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑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: A. M. Khan Leghari 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) (ASLAM HUSSAIN SHAH‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Maqbool Ahmed for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar‑Dismissal for conviction under Opium Act --Punjab Land Revenue Rules, r. 16 (ii) (d).
Judgment & Decree
Maqbool Ahmed for Petitioner. This is a revision from the order dated 21‑8‑1961, of the: Additional Commissioner, Rawalpindi, whereby he confirmed the Collector, Rawalpindi's order removing Aslam Shah petitioner from the Lambardari of Village Bakha Sayedan. The facts are that the Collector, on receipt of complaint by a large number of persons of village Bakha Sayedan that the petitioner is a notorious bad character and an opium smuggler, ordered an inquiry. The Naib Tehsildar of the Circle conducted the inquiry and his report was endorsed by the Tehsildar and the Revenue Assistant, Rawalpindi. All these Officers, as well as the police, recommended the Lambardar's dismissal on the ground that he was twice convicted under the Opium Act in 1950‑51 and was again challaned under the same Act in 1954‑55, but escaped conviction. He is on police Busta `B' of bad characters requiring surveillance. The main points contended before me are that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard by the Collector and that the only conviction against him was before his appointment as Lambardar in 1957. It is also contended that the complaint: were engineered by defaulting zamindars, because he was rigorously collecting the Government dues. I find that there is no force in these contentions. The Collector's order shows that the petitioner was called for explanation but failed to appear in spite of service. He has had full opportunity before the Commis sioner and myself to furnish adequate grounds for our interven tion, but has not been able to produce them. The story of zamindars bad falsely been implicating him, because he demanded land revenue, cannot be believed. The list of dues from the complainants, as produced by him, show petty recoverable amounts ranging between Re. 1 and Rs.
5. The collection of these petty Government dues cannot afford any basis for false complaint against him, as every Lambardar has to carry out his duties. Moreover under rule 16 (ii) (d) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, a Collector may dismiss a Lambardar if "there is a reason to believe that he has taken part in the smuggling of cocaine; opium or charas". The file before me shows ample reason for this belief. The appeal (sic) is, therefore, rejected in limine. A. H, Petition rejected.