P L D 1959 W (PLP)
ASGHAR ALI‑Petitioner Versus SARDAR KHAN RAJPUT and another‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | ASGHAR ALI‑Petitioner Versus SARDAR KHAN RAJPUT and another‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Lambardari‑, (b) Lambardari‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Lambardari‑, (b) Lambardari‑ 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: H. A. Majid, 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) (ASGHAR ALI‑Petitioner Versus SARDAR KHAN RAJPUT and another‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. R. Niazi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Claim to hereditary right in consequence of relinquishment of right by cousins whose father was a Lambardar in India‑--No ground for preferring over rival candidate who himself was Lambardar in India. Candidate with only 2 acres holding pre ferred to one owning a large holding but with an adverse police report.
Judgment & Decree
Candidate with only 2 acres holding pre ferred to one owning a large holding but with an adverse police report. A. R. Niazi for Petitioner. The petitioner claims that he has a hereditary title of a Lambardari appointment, because his uncle was a Lambardar in India and his cousins, who are the sons of his uncle and are now settled in the Multan district, have given a statement in writing to the effect that they would not seek any Lambardari appointment in Pakistan. This is rather, a tortuous claim, but in any ' case this fact does not afford the petitioner any preference over the respondent who was himself a Lambardar in India before migrating to this country. The petitioner has a large holding and might have been preferred on that account, but the fact that the Police report is adverse to him does away with the right to that preference. He was suspected by the Police in a dacoity case so much so that he remained absconding for some time. His papers have been kept by the Police in Basta B. It is, therefore, justified on the part of the Collector and the Commissioner to hesitate to appoint him as a Lambardar. The fact that the petitioner is well educated also goes over board. The final argument advanced against the respondent is that his holding is only 2 acres and that the Collector thought that this area did not give him the status essential for a Lambardar. I, however, feel I should not interfere against the respondent who got his Lambardari appointment at the time when the Commis sioner decided the appellate proceeding. I need not give a direction that he should be called upon to give a security for the safety of the Government revenues, because the Collector is himself competent to direct the execution of a security bond for the purpose. Altogether, I do not feel that any useful purpose will be served by calling the respondent to Court. I, therefore, dismiss this petition for revision without issuing notice to the respondent. A. H. Petition dismissed.