P L D 1963 W (PLP)
Risaldar GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN‑ Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1963 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | Risaldar GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN‑ Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Lambardar, (b) Lambardar‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1963 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 1963 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 1963 W (PLP) (Risaldar GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN‑ Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mazharul Haq and Abdul Ghafoor for Appellant.
- Amir Raza for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Appointment‑Candidate obtaining lease of Government land on nominal rates and continuing litigation with Government for retaining land ‑ Not desirable candidate. --Appointment in Colony Chak‑Absentee not to be appointed.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Lambardar‑
Appointment in Colony Chak‑Absentee not to be appointed. Mazharul Haq and Abdul Ghafoor for Appellant. Amir Raza for Respondent. This case relates to the temporary appointment of a Lambardar in Chak No. 13‑A/M.B., District Sargodha. The Collector appointed the petitioner Risaldar Ghulam Muhammad but the learned Commissioner interfered and preferred Muhammad Nawaz, the respondent who belongs to the majority tribe and who had already worked reasonably well in a temporary capacity. The reason why the Collector refused to consider Muhammad Nawaz as a suitable person for the post was that he had contrived to get State land in this estate on lease at nominal rates, and when the leases were cancelled for this very reason, he entered into litigation with Government. That civil litigations are still going on. The learned Commissioner thought that these facts did not constitute disqualification under the provisions of Land Revenue Rule
16. Now this rule lays down the circumstances under which a Lambardar shall or may be dismissed but it does not mean that it is only these circumstances alone which can stand in the way of an initial appointment. An interpretation of this kind would be misreading and misapplying the law. I have no doubt in my mind that a candidate who has tried to obtain on lease State land at nominal rates and continues litigation with Government for retaining it would be an undesirable choice for appoint ment even as a temporary Lambardar in a Colony Chak. In Colony estates the interests and rights of Government are quite considerable and a Lambardar should be a person who can be relied upon to look after State lands situated in the Chak and not exploit his position to the detriment of the public interest. The respondent would not therefore be a good choice for the appointment. It has been urged and admitted before me that the appellant himself is a non‑resident in this Chak though it is contended that he has his residence in an adjoining estate. That to my mind again is not enough for appointment as a Lambardar in a Colony Chak where developments are taking place and Government interests as already observed are considerable. Thus an absentee can hardly function satisfactorily in these new abadis. I would for these reasons set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner and accept the appeal but would remand the case to the Collector for inviting applications again and coming to a fresh decision on merits. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.