P L D 1961 W (PLP)
ISMAIL‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMID‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1961 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmed, Member Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | ISMAIL‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMID‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1961 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 1961 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmed, Member Board of Revenue,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1961 W (PLP) (ISMAIL‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMID‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Latif for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Candidate belonging to Lam bardar family‑Not by itself ‑sufficient to appoint him Lambardar. (b) Lam5ardar‑Appointment‑Collector's decision cannot be upset if it is neither perverse nor foolish. (c) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Candidate must own sufficient property to cover land revenue demand. Respondent in person. _
Judgment & Decree
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Candidate belonging to Lam bardar family‑Not by itself ‑sufficient to appoint him Lambardar. (b) Lam5ardar‑Appointment‑Collector's decision cannot be upset if it is neither perverse nor foolish. (c) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Candidate must own sufficient property to cover land revenue demand. Abdul Latif for Petitioner. Respondent in person. _ This is a second appeal against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner, Lahore, who upset the appointment of the appellant Ismail as Lambardar of Chak No. 5‑G. B., District Sheikhupura, and appointed Abdul Hamid, the ‑respondent instead. The Additional Commissioner intervened on the ground that Abdul Hamid came of a Lambardar family and thus had a better claim to the appointment. I have already held in R. O. R. No. 110 of 1960/61 Abdullah Khan v. Ghulam Haider that this‑fact by itself is not sufficient to warrant interference in the order of the Collector in a Lambardari case unless the Commissioner holds that the decision of the Collector is perverse or foolish. Ismail has a sizable holding whereas Abdul Hamid's own inheritance as admitted before me, is about 12 or 13 kanals and is insufficient to cover the land revenue demand. This is fluctuating in character and may roughly be put at Rs. 10,000 per annum. It is true that he has been gifted about 10 acres of the land, the holdings of the entire family plus that of some friends but I have grave doubts if this ran be considered a genuine gift. I would in these circumstances accept the appeal set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner and restore that of the Collector. K. M A. Appeal accepted.