P L D 1959 W (PLP)
MANSHA‑Petitioner Versus MAHBOOB‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. Z. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MANSHA‑Petitioner Versus MAHBOOB‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 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 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. Z. Khan, 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) (MANSHA‑Petitioner Versus MAHBOOB‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
- Anwar Latif for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar‑ Appointment‑Candidate improving his status by acquiring land by gift from father, to exclusion of four other sons five daughters and wife‑Gift, held to be of suspicious character Consequent improvement in property qualifications ignored. (b) Lambardar‑ Appointment ‑ Hereditary claim ‑Ignored, where father of candidate was convicted of criminal offence.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Lambardar‑ Appointment ‑ Hereditary claim ‑Ignored, where father of candidate was convicted of criminal offence. Nemo for Petitioner. Anwar Latif for Respondent. This is a petition in revision under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against order dated 8‑10‑57, passed by the Commissioner, Multan Division, by which he upheld order dated 29‑3‑57, passed by the Collector, Montgomery, appointing the respondent as Lambardar of Patti Balbir Singh, Chak K‑Plot, Tehsil Okara, District Montgomery.
2. The vacancy arose as a result of the migration of the non‑Muslim Lambardar to India. Since Rajputs predominate in the Patti the Collector proceeded to appoint a Lambardar from that tribe.
3. The petitioner, Mansha Khan, is a Rajput, 24 years of age and own 11 acres of land in this Patti and 1 acres in the other Patti. He led some evidence before the Collector to show that his father had alienated 4 acres of land in his favour the Collector found that the petitioner's father had four other sons, five daughters and one wife, who were all excluded by the alleged gift. He, therefore, held it to be suspicious for purposes of this case and relied on Muhammad Sarwar v. Umar Din (P L D 1957 W P (Rev.) 31). The petitioner, father was dismissed, as he committed a criminal offence. The Collector passed over the petitioner's claim on the ground that the petitioner must be under the influence of his father. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner. On appeal the Commissioner reversed the order but a revision petition was filed before the Financial Commissioner, which could not be decided: as a result of independence. It is not necessary to decide in this case whether the petitioner should be regarded as having lost his hereditary claim on account of the dismissal of his father. In P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 1157 it was held that where a Lambardar is convicted of the offence of murder his heir may be passed over on that account.
4. The respondent is a Rajput, 43 years of age, owns 12 acres of land in this Patti and 9J acres in other Patti. He was himself a previous Lambardar and was recommended by the E. A. S. O. On the facts stated above the order of the Collector, appointing the respondent as Lambardar cannot be called perverse or unreasonable. The result is that the petition is rejected without issuing notice to the opposite party. A. H. Petition rejected.