P L D 1965 W (PLP)
ABDUL RAHIM‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMID‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL RAHIM‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMID‑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) (ABDUL RAHIM‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMID‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Q. M. Saleem for Petitioner.
- Yunus Shah for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑Appointment‑Hereditary considerations can be taken into consideration while considering provisions of r. 15, Punjab Land Revenue Rules‑Relationship with former Lambardar, though such relationship is not that of collateral, of type mentioned in r. 17(ii)(a), Punjab Land Revenue Rules taken into consideration.
Appointment‑(Residence in village)‑Absentee candidate can be appointed if suitable person residing in village is not available‑Candidate found suitable and residing in village preferred to one residing 14 miles away though a B. D. and having more valuable land than resident candidate.
Judgment & Decree
Q. M. Saleem for Petitioner. Yunus Shah for Respondent. This is a second appeal filed against an order dated the 23rc of February 1965, passed by the Additional Commissioner Dera Ismail Khan, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent was accepted. The facts of the case are that, when Qutab‑ud‑Din Lambardar of the village was removed on grounds of insanity, his son along with the parties contested the post. The son was ignored because he did not have sufficient property. Out of the parties; the Collector selected the appellant. Abdul Hamid respondent went in appeal to the Collector, who accepted it and appointed him as a Lambardar. Hence this second appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned Additional Commissioner appears to have been influenced by the consideration that the Government have decided that the post of Lambardar should not be, hereditary. This was based on some, misapprehension because they passed no such orders. The learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the case was not covered by rule 17(ii). It is correct that the appellant does not claim to be collateral of the type mentioned in rule 17(ii)(a) but hereditary consideration can be taken into consideration while considering the provisions of rule
15. The fact remains that while the appellant is related to the former Lambardar, the respondent cannot claim any relationship with him. The determining factor in this case is that of residence. While it is established that the appellant lives in this very village, the respondent lives 14 miles away. Absentees can be appointed if a suitable person residing in the village is not available. Bur, in this case, I find that the appellant is a suitable person who resides, in the village and, therefore, there, can be no question of appointing any absentee. The learned counsel for the respondent has stated that Abdul Hamid respondent owns property which is ten times as valuable as that of the appellant. He is also a B. D. member. This may be true but he suffers from a serious disqualification of being a non‑resident. In these circumstances, I accept the appeal and direct that Abdul Rahim shall be appointed as a Lambardar. A. H. Appeal accepted.