P L D 1966 W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 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 1966 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. U. Khan, 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 1966 W (PLP) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Bakhshi Anwar Ali for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar ‑ Appointment ‑ Candidate bound down under S. 107, Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑Collector has discretion to ignore such candidate.
Judgment & Decree
Lambardar ‑ Appointment ‑ Candidate bound down under S. 107, Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑Collector has discretion to ignore such candidate. Bakhshi Anwar Ali for Petitioner. This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 2nd of July 1963, passed by the Commissioner, Sargodha, whereby he rejected this appeal preferred by the petitioner. The facts of the case are that one Dost Muhammad was appointed as Lambardar by the Collector. The petitioner went in appeal to the Commissioner who remanded the case. After the remand the Collector again appointed Dost Muhammad as Lambardar. One Muhammad Bakhsh and the petitioner preferred appeals before the Commissioner, who rejected the appeal of Muhammad Nawaz, but accepted that of Muhammad Bakhsh and the case was remanded for reconsideration. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that this case is governed by rule 17 (ii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules but in this case Muhammad Nawaz, petitioner, was bound down under section 107, Cr. P. C. twice. His case, therefore, falls under rule 16 (ii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. It is within the discretion of the Collector to ignore persons like the petitioner under the provisions of rule 16 (ii) (a) read. with rule 17 (ii) (c). In the circumstances I see no justification for interference. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.