P L D 1965 W (PLP)
MAULA BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus Subedar Major BAZ KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MAULA BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus Subedar Major BAZ KHAN‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Lambardar, (b) Lambardar‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Lambardar, (b) Lambardar‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1965 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 1965 W (PLP) (MAULA BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus Subedar Major BAZ KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhtar Ahmad Shah for Petitioner.
- The next point urged by the learned counsel for petitioner is that the respondent was allotted land under the Border Scheme and cannot, therefore, look after the duties of a Lambardar. On the other hand, the respondent has stated that he lives permanently in this very Chak and has given an able‑bodied representative for cultivating the land given to him under the Border Scheme.
Headnotes / Summary
Appointment‑Appointee, ties des owning land in Chak; also allotted land under Border Scheme, but permanently residing in his original Chak, keeping an able‑bodied person to look after land on border‑Concurrent findings as to appointment not interfered with in Revision before Board.
Judgment & Decree
Appointment‑Appointee, ties des owning land in Chak; also allotted land under Border Scheme, but permanently residing in his original Chak, keeping an able‑bodied person to look after land on border‑Concurrent findings as to appointment not interfered with in Revision before Board. Akhtar Ahmad Shah for Petitioner. Respondent in person. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 3rd of September 1964, passed by Commissioner, Multan, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts of the case are that Sadullah Khan Lambardar transferred his land to his sons and was removed from the post of Lambardar. The vacancy was, contested by the parties as well as by one Allah Bakhsh. Allah Bakhsh was the brother of the respondent and withdrew in his favour. The Collector appointed the respondent as Lambardar. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner but it was dismissed. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has contended that, as Sadullah Khan was removed, his son cannot be appointed as Lambardar. I am afraid I cannot accept this contention. Sadullah Khan was removed because he became landless. There are no instructions that, in such cases, the son of the former Lambardar cannot be appointed as Lambardar. The next point urged by the learned counsel for petitioner is that the respondent was allotted land under the Border Scheme and cannot, therefore, look after the duties of a Lambardar. On the other hand, the respondent has stated that he lives permanently in this very Chak and has given an able‑bodied representative for cultivating the land given to him under the Border Scheme. Having considered all the aspects of the case, I see no justification for any interference with the concurrent findings of the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. A. H. Petition dismissed.