P L D 1957 W (PLP)
TUFAIL MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD QARAR KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1957 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | TUFAIL MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD QARAR KHAN‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Lambardar‑, (b) Lambardar‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1957 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 1957 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 1957 W (PLP) (TUFAIL MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD QARAR KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Abdur Rahim for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Appointment‑Preference may be given to candidate for his past services in his old district.
Living permanently in town, but also having residential accommodation in village abadi‑‑Village contiguous to town‑Not absentee.
Judgment & Decree
H. A. MAJID.‑
There is no doubt that the holding of the petitioner in the village in question is as large as that of the respondent. The reason for this was that there was a limit of 7 acres imposed in respect of all allotments in the village which was a congested one. Both the petitioner and the respondent have other allotments in one other village each in the Lyallpur district. The respondent however, is a very much more substantial Zamindar than the petitioner. There is no doubt that the petitioner belongs to the majority community in this Patti. The respondent's com munity, however, is quite substantial though it is a minority. The respondent was such a substantial rural leader in the Hoshiarpur district that he deserves some consideration out of the ordinary. He was a Zaildar and a Lambardar in a number of estates and was an active worker in the interest of rural welfare. It was, thus, quite justified on the part of the Collector to prefer him to the petitioner, The Collector and the Commissioner looked into the question of a Lambardari which the respondent had obtained in a Chak in the Sheikhupura District. The Commissioner was informed that the respondent had never been interested in that Lambardari. He has now shown me a copy of an order recorded by the Collector of Sheikhupura on 16th February 1957, to the effect that his resignation from that Lambardari had been accepted. To my mind, that Lambardari did not raise any relevant question in the present case, because the respondent had never been alleged to be a resident of that village in the Sheikhupura. The point which determines the present case is that the respondent deserves to be a Lambardar at his head quarters. The village in question is contiguous to the Lyallpur Municipality and is more or less a part of the town. The respondent lives in the town permanently but has also residential accommodation available in the village Abadi. He cannot, therefore, be described as an absentee. In, the above circumstances, it would not be correct on my pat to interfere in revision in favour of the petitioner. I, therefore, dismiss this petition for revision. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.