P L D 1959 W (PLP)
HAQ NAWAZ KHAN‑Petitioner Versus RAHIM BAKHSH‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | HAQ NAWAZ KHAN‑Petitioner Versus RAHIM BAKHSH‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Lambardar‑, (a) Lambardar‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Lambardar‑, (a) Lambardar‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: H. A. Majid, 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 1959 W (PLP) (HAQ NAWAZ KHAN‑Petitioner Versus RAHIM BAKHSH‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. A. Zaidi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Appointment--‑Estate a heterogeneous one --Member of influential family appointed even though not residing in estate‑Board refused to upset decision of Collector confirmed by Commissioner. Work not satisfactory‑No ground for up setting appointment in revision‑Separate proceedings before Collector necessary.
Judgment & Decree
Work not satisfactory‑No ground for up setting appointment in revision‑Separate proceedings before Collector necessary. M. A. Zaidi for Respondent. It is clear that the respondent is not a resident of the estate. He, however, lives in the adjacent village and his residence is within 240 Karams of the boundary of the estate. The respondent is admittedly a member of a very influential family and is a very substantial land owner. The Qureshis are ten in number and it is correct that none of them lives in the estate. This may have been a handicap against the respondent but it has to be borne in mind that the total comp lexion of this estate is a heterogeneous one. The petitioner is an Alizai Pathan a community claiming only 13 owners in this estate. The total number of owners in the estate is
349. In the above circumstances, I do not consider that I should interfere in an appointment made by the Collector and confirmed by the Commissioner, merely on the technical ground that the respondent does not live in the estate. The petitioner suggests that the working of the respondent as a Lambardar since he was appointed is not satisfactory. This is, however, not a matter which can be raised properly during the course of the revision proceedings. If the respondent mis‑ B behaves or is inefficient in the discharge of his Lambardari duties, it is for the Collector to take punitive action against him. In the above circumstances, I dismiss this petition for revision. A. H. Petition dismissed.