P L D 1964 W (PLP)
GHULAM MUSTAFA‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN AHMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1964 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | GHULAM MUSTAFA‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN AHMAD‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Lambardar, (b) Lambardar |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Lambardar, (b) Lambardar as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmad, 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 1964 W (PLP) (GHULAM MUSTAFA‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN AHMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑Appointment‑Local having hereditary claim in place of Hindu Lambardar‑Appointed.
‑Appointment‑Absentee need not be appointed.
Judgment & Decree
(a) Lambardar
‑Appointment‑Local having hereditary claim in place of Hindu Lambardar‑Appointed. (b) Lambardar
‑Appointment‑Absentee need not be appointed. This Lambardari of village Chakrala, District Sialkot fell vacant when Beli Ram, the last incumbent of the post died in April 1947. The Collector appointed Ghulam Mustafa appellant who is a collateral of Beli Ram and was argued to have a heredi tary claim. Even otherwise on merits, his appointment was considered to be in the interests of good administration. He is apparently influential as he is a member of the local Union:. Council. Sultan Ahmad, who is a Muhajir was overlooked by the Collector as he had already been appointed a Lambardar in a neighbouring estate. The learned Additional Commissioner, however, interfered in appeal. He held that as the vacancy had occurred due to the death of a Hindu Lambardar it should go to a displaced person. Further the fact that Sultan Ahmad had already been appointed a Lambardar in a neighbouring village did not stand in the way of his appointment as Lambardar of Chakrala. Ghulam Mustafa has come up in revision. Two main points have been taken up before us; firstly that the Lambardari is hereditary qua Ghulam Mustafa and secondly, the respondent who is already a Lambardar in an adjoining Chak and is an absentee from this estate would not be able to perform efficiently and satisfactorily the duties of the post. Further the mere fact that the Lambardari was held by a Hindu does not debar a local if he is otherwise suitable and has good claims. In this particular case the appellant is a local and has a hereditary claim. His branch of the family embraced Islam long before Independence and this fact cannot take away his hereditary rights under the rule of primogeniture. Instances are not lacking where a local has been appointed a Lambardar to a post vacated by a Hindu as a result of migration after Independence. In this particular case there are two strong grounds in favour of the appellant's appointment; his hereditary claims and the fact that the respondent is an absentee from this estate being a Lambardar in a neighbouring village in which he resides. In my opinion the choice of the Collector was legally correct and also administratively sound. I would accordingly accept the petition, set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and restore that of the Collector. K. M. A. Petition accepted.