P L D 1966 W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YUSUF‑Petitioner Versus MALIK DAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YUSUF‑Petitioner Versus MALIK DAD‑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) (MUHAMMAD YUSUF‑Petitioner Versus MALIK DAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Hafeez Ahmad for Petitioner.
- Malik Muhammad Aslam for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Lambardar resigning and only one person submitting application to Collector‑Order of appoint ment of such person as Lambardar not open to appeal. (b) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Lambardar resigning and his heir not applying for appointment as Lambardar‑Appointment to be made under r. 17 (iii), Punjab Land Revenue Rules.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Hafeez Ahmad for Petitioner. Malik Muhammad Aslam for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 19th of May 1965, passed by the Commissioner, Rawalpindi, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner, was dismissed. The facts of the case are that Khuda Bakhsh Lambardar resigned. He did not take any responsibility for the minor sons. Applications were invited for filling up the vacancy. Nobody except the respondent applied. The Collector appointed the respondent as Lambardar. The petitioner went in appeal to the Commissioner and applied for appointment as Lambardar. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not apply before the Collector. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the first instance, he has suggested that as the petitioner applied for appointment before the Commissioner and an appeal is a continua tion of the original proceedings, he should have therefore been considered as an applicant. I am afraid I cannot agree with this contention. The main task before the learned Commissioner was to find out whether the Collector's order, in the circumstances as they existed before him, was correct or not. If the petitioner did not apply before the Collector, he could not obviously be appointed as Lambardar by the Collector. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev,) 1032. I am afraid, it does not help the petitioner because, in that case, an application was made before the Collector although it was not made early enough. In this particular case, the petitioner did not apply before the Collector at all. The last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appointment has been made under Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules and is, therefore, illegal. This proposition is not correct either for the simple reason that before the Collector, the minor sons of Khuda Bakhsh could not apply and no other eligible heir came forward for appoint ment. No heir could, therefore, be appointed and the case thus came to be governed by rule 17 (iii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. In such cases, the appointment has to be made after keeping in view all the considerations mentioned in rule
15. There has, therefore, been no illegality at all. In these circumstances, the revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.