P L D 1959 (W (PLP)
LAL KHAN‑Petitioner Versus BARKHURDAR and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1959 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | A. T. Naqvi, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | LAL KHAN‑Petitioner Versus BARKHURDAR and another‑‑Respondents |
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: A. T. Naqvi, 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) (LAL KHAN‑Petitioner Versus BARKHURDAR and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Said Akbar Khan for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Waheed for Respondent.
- Ghazi Abdur Rehman for Respondent No. 2.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar‑Appointment‑Rule of primogeniture‑Younger son preferred by Collector and Commissioner over elder son who had been convicted twice for gambling but "had turned over a new leaf"‑Held : Rule of primogeniture overrode other considerations in circumstances of case‑Elder son appointed.
Judgment & Decree
This is a very interesting appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Rawalpindi Division of the 14th of January 1958, by which he confirmed the order of the Collector of Rawalpindi 1 appointing one Barkhurdar; respondent No. 1, as Lambardar in village Rewat of Tahsil and District Rawalpindi. The appellant is the elder brother of Barkhurdar from another mother, and both the Commissioner and Collector have relied on the fact that Lal Khan was convicted in the year 1949 for gambling and again in the year 1950 he was convicted for the same offence. It is admitted on both sides that he was fined Rs. five on each of the occasions and according to the usual rules his history sheet was opened up. It is also clear from the report of the Tahsildar dated 5th August 1957, that the history‑sheet has been filed now because of the good conduct of the appellant since 1950. In other words the appellant seems to have turned a new leaf and is no longer gambling in such a way that ha can be caught out and convicted. The younger brother, Barkhurdar, respon dent, No. 1, whom the Commissioner and the Collector appointed as Lainbardar appears to be a good man and is also an educated person ; and I would have not interferred in this order but for fact that both the Collector and the Commissioner ignored tire over‑riding rule of primogeniture which applies in this case. First of all, in my opinion, there was not a strong case against the appellant himself and even if there was a case against him RA his grand‑sons were in the field for the choice of a Lambardar. I, however, hold that Lal Khan himself is good enough to be appointed as Lambardar and although Barkhurdar is a good and educated person, his appointment cannot be upheld strictly, according to the law and should be set aside. The appeal is accepted. A.H. Petition accepted.