1989 PLP 2487 (CLC)
YAQOOB MASIH‑‑Petitioner Versus MAULA BAKHSH‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2487 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | Syed Sarfraz Hussain, Member (Revenue) |
| Parties | YAQOOB MASIH‑‑Petitioner Versus MAULA BAKHSH‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2487 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 2487 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: Syed Sarfraz Hussain, Member (Revenue).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2487 (CLC) (YAQOOB MASIH‑‑Petitioner Versus MAULA BAKHSH‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Nasim SabIr for Petitioner.
- Malik Yousaf Farooq for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 4th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 136‑‑Lambardar, appointment of‑‑Majority of land‑owners had not yet acquired proprietary rights in the estate‑‑Mere payment of instalments by some of land‑owners would not serve the purpose until conveyance deeds were executed‑‑Proprietary land of Chak was still less than 50% of total land‑‑Order of rejection of application for appointment as permanent Lambarder in circumstances was not interfered with.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Nasim SabIr for Petitioner. Malik Yousaf Farooq for Respondent. Date of hearing: 4th June, 1989. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6‑4‑1985 of Commissioner, Bahawalpur whereby his appeal was dismissed.
2. Briefly, stated the facts are that the petitioner applied to the AC/Collector to appoint him as a permanent Lambarder of Chak No.116/IL, Tehsil Khanpur in place of respondent temporary Lambardar. The request of the petitioner was turned down by the AC/Collector on 10‑1‑1985 on the plea that more than 50% of the land was under instalments, therefore, existing arrangements would prevail. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Commissioner but failed vide impugned order. Hence this petition.
3. I have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the total land of the Chak was 703 acres, 7 kanals and 13 marlas out of which the land owners of 189 acres 6 kanals and 8 marlas had obtained proprietary rights that land‑owners of 288 acres 1 kanal and 5 marlas had also deposited their full instalments and, therefore, more than 50% land‑owners had got their proprietary rights but the Courts below did not appreciate this point. The Courts below also misinterpreted the relevant law on the subject. The petitioner is more educated than the respondent, and therefore, the petitioner's application before the AC/Collector for permanent Lambardar should have been accepted.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the orders of Courts below and has stated that in the circumstances of the case, there was hardly any need for the post of permanent Lambardar in the Chak.
5. I have considered the arguments and have examined the orders of the Courts below. It is evident from the record that the estate consists of 740 acres of land. Out of it 538 acres of land is yet owned by the Government meaning thereby majority of land‑owners had not yet acquired the proprietary rights. Mere A payment of instalments by some of them will not serve the purpose until conveyance deeds are executed in all such cases. In view of this position it is established that the proprietary land of this Chak is still less than 50% of the total land in view of the above. I see no justification to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. M.AX/325/R Petition dismissed.