P L D 1966 W (PLP)
IQBAL MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus HASTA‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | IQBAL MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus HASTA‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 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 1966 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. U. 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 1966 W (PLP) (IQBAL MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus HASTA‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A. R. Niazi for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Shafi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment ‑ Candidate, a Canal Patwari, owning no land in patti, cannot be appointed. (b) Practice‑Concurrent finding of fact by Collector and Commissioner‑Not interfered with.
Judgment & Decree
This is a revision against an order, dated the 5th of December 1964, passed by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts of the case are that, when the question of filling up a permanent vacancy in this Patti, caused by the migration of non‑Muslim Lambardar, came up for consideration, three candidates, including the parties, applied for the post. The Collector preferred the respondent. The petitioner went in appeal to the Commissioner, but it was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at great length. It is true that the petitioner belongs to the Rajput community and his father was a Lambardar and he also owns more land, but he suffers from incurable defect of owning no land in this Patti. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred me to the following rulings:‑
(1) P L D 1964 W P (Rev.) 16. (2) P L D 1963 W P (Rev.) 72. (3) P L D 1962 W P (Rev.) 20. (4) P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 1055. So far as the first ruling is concerned, I respectfully differed from the view of my learned predecessor and gave a decision reported in P L D 1965 W P (Rev.)
21. In the second ruling, the appointment of a persistant absentee was not upheld. The third ruling relates to the fact that the learned Commissioner intervened in appeal and appointed a candidate holding larger area in the estate, but this order was set aside by my learned Predecessor. In the 4th ruling, it was held that the fact that a man is a Patwari, is no bar to his being. appointed as a Lambardar. These rulings are not at all applicable to the facts of this case, because the Petitioner is a Canal Patwari and at the same time he does not own any land in the Patti concerned. The legal position is quite clear. Even if the petitioner was appointed as a Lambardar in this Patti, he shall stand automatically dismissed under rule 16 (i) (c) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. In these circumstances, I see no justification for any interference with the concurrent finding of the learned Collector's and the learned Commissioner. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.