P L D 1959 W (PLP)
RAMZAN‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL DIN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | RAMZAN‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL DIN‑Respondent |
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: Nasir Ahmad, 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) (RAMZAN‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL DIN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar‑Appointment‑Order of Collector confirmed by Commissioner in appeal‑No interference ire revision if the orders are not illegal or perverse.
Judgment & Decree
Revision Side No. 50 of 1955‑56, decided on 18th January 1956, District Montgomery. Lambardar‑Appointment‑Order of Collector confirmed by Commissioner in appeal‑No interference ire revision if the orders are not illegal or perverse. This order will dispose of the two connected revision petitions Nos. 49 and 50 of 1955‑56, which relate to the Lambardari of Chak No. 72/EB., Tahsil Pakpattan, District Montgomery. The post fell vacant as a result of the migration of non Muslims and the Collector appointed Fazal Din respondent ignoring the two petitioners Abdullah Khan and Ramzan. The Commissioner on appeal upheld the decision of the Collector which was based on the suitability of the applications for the post keeping in view also the hereditary claims if any of the petitioners in the original estates from which they had migrated. The main argument which has now been advanced is that Rajputs are the second largest tribe in the Chak and one of the two posts should have gone to them and not to Gujars, the tribe to which Fazal Din belongs. I am afraid this argument is based one confusion of the meaning of the two words‑"tribe" and "community". The matter has been considered at some length by my learned predeces sor Akhter Hussain F. C., in Ata Muhammad Khan v. Talib Hussain P L D 1952 Pb. 20 and he has clearly stated the distinc tion involved. Besides the general practice which has been followed by Financial Commissioners and now by the Board of Revenue in Lambardari cases is not to interfere in the decisions of the Collector particularly when it is upheld by the Commis sioner unless it is considered to be illegal or perverse. There are no grounds to hold that the decision under consideration can be classified under either of these two categories. I would accordingly decline to interfere and reject both the revision petitions. K.M.A. Revision rejected.