P L D 1965 W (PLP)
MUDDASSAR SHAH‑Petitioner Versus SAKAB SHAH‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUDDASSAR SHAH‑Petitioner Versus SAKAB SHAH‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Lambardar‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: 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) (MUDDASSAR SHAH‑Petitioner Versus SAKAB SHAH‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khan Bahadur for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Appointment made in 1938‑Cannot be disturbed in 1963 merely because a contesting candidate had improved his status in meantime by acquiring property of original (deceased) Lambardar in 1959‑Punjab Land venue Rules, r. 15 not appli cable being related to fresh appointments.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner in person. Khan Bahadur for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 1st of August 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Peshawar, who, while exercising the powers of a Commissioner, rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Briefly the facts, of the case are that Ali Akbar Shah, Lambardar died in 1937 without leaving any issue. The vacancy was filled by the appointment of the respondent but the petitioner's father, Syed Asghar Shah, was one of the candidates and his claims were rejected by the Collector. The respondent continued to work as Lambardar till 1963 when the petitioner put in an application to the effect that he was the nephew of the former Lambardar Ali Akbar Shah and should be appointed as Lambardar. The matter was reconsidered but ultimately the Collector filed the application of the petitioner the petitioner went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner but it was dismissed. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main question for determination is whether the appointment order made on 25‑1‑38 was correct or not. At that time, Syed Asghar Shah was one of the contestants but the respondent was preferred. It was stated that the petitioner's father got the property of Ali Akbar Shah only in 1959, and it was after his death that the petitioner made the application. Merely on account of the death of one of the contestants and the fact that Syed Asghar Shah got the property in 1959, the matter cannot be re‑opened. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred me to rule 15 of Land Revenue Rules but that relates to fresh appointments. There is no provision under which a duly appointed Lambardar can be removed or replaced, merely because some other person's status has been improved on account of acquisition of some property. In the circumstances, I see no justification for any interference. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. A. H. Petition dismissed.