P L D 1957 W (PLP)
GHULAM SHABBIR SHAH‑Petitioner Versus GUL MUHAMMAD SHAH‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1957 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM SHABBIR SHAH‑Petitioner Versus GUL MUHAMMAD SHAH‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1957 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 1957 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1957 W (PLP) (GHULAM SHABBIR SHAH‑Petitioner Versus GUL MUHAMMAD SHAH‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shah Rehman Ansari, Advocate for Petitioner.
- Kh. Abdur Rahim, Advocate assisted by Ghulam Ali Alvi, Advocate for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Appeal against Commissioner competent only on point of law‑y a treated as revision.
Judgment & Decree
H. A. MAJID.‑
It is not quite clear whether the estate in dispute was ever constituted into two separate sub divisions. When the extensions of the Lower Chenab Canal took place, this chak was carved out of an existing village, so that some proprietary area fell within the limits of this chak. The rest of the land in the chak was State property. The petitioner's father (Amir Hussain Shah) was appointed the first Lambardar and when that happened, the Collector stated that he was being appointed for the proprietary area. The assumption is that the Collector meant to say that no Lambardari duties were likely to arise from the State owned property. After the death of Syed Amir Hussain Shah, no permanent appointment of Lambardar had been made before the Col lector's order, dated 1st November 1954. The Commissioner has directed that the appointment should be made after advertising in the village and inviting applications from candidates. Such a direction on the part of the Com missioner is unquestionable. I, therefore, find that the petition for revision must be dismissed. The petitioner had described this case as one of appeal. I have, however, treated it as a case for revision on the A ground that second appeals are now a days competent against the orders of Commissioners only on points of law. The question whether the present petitioner continues as temporary Lambardar for the time being has to be decided. The respondent states that the appointment has to be continued by a special order of the Collector from year to year. This contention is supported by the order of Mr. Hubbard , dated 25th March 1943. I leave it to the present Collector to decide whether the petitioner would continue as temporary Lambardar till a fresh decision takes place about the permanent appointment. The petition for revision will be considered to have been dismissed. K.M.A. Revision dismissed.