1972 PLP 253 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHAFFI‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE,
| Citation | 1972 PLP 253 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Waheeduddin Ahmad |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFFI‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1972 PLP 253 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1972 PLP 253 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Waheeduddin Ahmad.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1972 PLP 253 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHAFFI‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. Ali Raza, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
- A. H. Najafi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Maqbool Ahmad Rana, Advocate‑on‑ Record for Respondent No. 3.
- Memo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Date of hearing : 16th June 1972.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore‑ High Court, dated 22nd March 1972, in L. P. A. No. 3 of 972). Lambardar‑Office of lambardar could not be claimed as of a right‑High Court, held, right in dismissing writ petition in limine.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑The petitioner was one of the two candidates for the appointment of Lambardars. The other candidate was respondent No: 3, Taj Mohammed. On a comparative study of the merits of the two candidates the Collector, by his order dated 27‑4‑1970, appointed respondent No. 3, Taj Mohammed. The petitioner felt aggrieved by this appointment, and approached the High Court on a writ petition. This Court in the case of Abdul Wahid v. The Member, Board of Revenue; Punjab and another (1971 SCMR719) has taken the view that the office of a Lambardar was essentially an administrative measure and no claim to that office could be laid as of right. The High Court was, therefore, right in dismissing in limine the petitioner's writ application. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.