P L D (Rev (PLP)
MAULA BAKHSH‑Plaintiff Versus TAJAMUL HUSSAIN KHAN‑Defendant
| Citation | P L D (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue |
| Parties | MAULA BAKHSH‑Plaintiff Versus TAJAMUL HUSSAIN KHAN‑Defendant |
| Primary Law | Lambardari‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Lambardari‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: H. A. Majid, 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 (Rev (PLP) (MAULA BAKHSH‑Plaintiff Versus TAJAMUL HUSSAIN KHAN‑Defendant). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Abdur Rahim for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Yahya for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Appointment‑Claimant from predominant tribe preferred though rival tribes possessed nearly equal areas-- Hereditary claims similar‑‑Choice of Collector preferred. F. M. Anwari for Mushtaq Hussain for Ghulam Muhammad 3rd Claimant.
Judgment & Decree
H. A MAJID.‑Maula Bux was the Collector's choice. The Commissioner, however, put Tajamul Hussain Khan in his place. Maula Bux wants me to 'restore the Collector's decision. Ghulam Muhammad wants me to direct that he should be preferred to both Tajammal Husain Khan and Maula Bux. There are 369 Gujjar settlers in this estate and they have 271 acres allotted to them under the Rehabilitation Settle ment Scheme. Both Ghulam Muhammad and Maula Bux are Gujjars. Tajammal Hussain Khan, on the other hand, is a Rajput which community is represented by 27 settlers holding 268 acres. It is quite clear that the Gujjars are predominant in numbers so much that the Rajputs are really insignificant in comparison with them. The Rajputs on, the other hand must be comparatively bigger holders of property and Tajammal Hussain Khan is included among them. Both Ghulam Muhammad and Maula Bux have hereditary claims to a Lambardari appointment. Maula Bux himself was not a Lambardar in East Punjab but he is the eldest son of his father who was a Lambardar there till the days of immigration. Tajammal Hussain Khan was a Lambardar in East Punjab in three Estates, and wants me to prefer him to the other two candidates in spite of the fact that he represents a minority community. I have given due consideration to this aspect of the case and have come to the conclusion that I must prefer a Gujjar to a Rajput in this estate. Between Maula Bux and Ghulam Muhammad, the choice may be very difficult, because‑ (1) their hereditary claims are similar, (2) their holdings are almost of the same size, Maula Bux being the allottee of 51 Kanals and Ghulam Muhammad being an allottee of 9 Kanals and donee of 45 Kanals, and (3) both of them are educated though the vision of Maula Bux seems to be broader than that of Ghulam Muhammad, because Maula Bux has been serving the State in East Africa. The above considerations, however, merely indicate that it should accept the choice of the Collector. For the above reasons, I accept the petition of Maula Bux and direct that his appointment as Lambardar should be restored. The petition of Ghulam Muhammad will be con sidered to have been dismissed to the extent that he will not get the Lambardari appointment. A. H. Petition accepted.