P L D 1966 W (PLP)
NUR MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus SHERAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | NUR MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus SHERAN‑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) (NUR MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus SHERAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rana Abdur Rahim for Petitioner.
- M. Ismail Bhatti for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment of Lambardar of Chak carved out of old village‑Hereditary claims of candidate can be taken into consideration‑Refugees and locals form one community. (b) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Concurrent findings of Collector and Commissioner‑No interference.
Judgment & Decree
Rana Abdur Rahim for Petitioner. M. Ismail Bhatti for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 16th of June 1964, passed by 'Commissioner, Multan, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The facts of the case are that Chak No. 150‑B/TDA was carved out of the old village Kunal Thal Jandi. When the question of appointing a Lambardar in this chak came up for consideration, five persons including the parties applied for the post. The Collector considered the claims of the various contestants and appointed the respondent as Lambardar. The petitioner went in appeal to the Commissioner but it was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has stated that the respondent was appointed as Lambardar inspite of the fact that the petitioner had hereditary claims. Such a claim is one of the factors to be taken into consideration) and the petitioner cannot claim overriding preference on that account alone. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that there has been miscarriage of justice because the services rendered by the petitioner's relatives were not given due consideration. From the record, I find that the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner both went into this question and the mere possibility that the record of the service of the respondent could be considered more valuable does not amount to any miscarriage of justice. The last point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, from the old village as many as eleven new chaks have been carved out and in all these chaks the lambardari has gone to a local. In this chak at least the petitioner, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, should have been appointed as a lambardar because he was refugee. We have not laid down anywhere that a community should be further sub‑divided into locals and refugees. Both refugees and locals have to form a community and it is that community that is so formed which has; to be taken into consideration under rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. In these circumstances, I see no justification for any interference with the concurrent findings of the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.