P L D 1960 W (PLP)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus NIAMAT ALI‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1960 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. Z. Khan, Member Board of Revenue |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus NIAMAT ALI‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1960 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 1960 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. Z. Khan, Member Board of Revenue.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1960 W (PLP) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus NIAMAT ALI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- (b) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Suitable candidate with here ditary claim and owing sufficient property to be appointed in preference to candidate, whose property is inadequate, though his tribe is more numerous, Islam‑ul‑Hag for Petitioner.
- A. R. Khan Niazi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Collector not taking into con sideration hereditary claim of candidate and appointing other candidate as Lambardar‑Order not reasonable.
Judgment & Decree
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Collector not taking into con sideration hereditary claim of candidate and appointing other candidate as Lambardar‑Order not reasonable. (b) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Suitable candidate with here ditary claim and owing sufficient property to be appointed in preference to candidate, whose property is inadequate, though his tribe is more numerous, Islam‑ul‑Hag for Petitioner. A. R. Khan Niazi for Respondent. The appellant was appointed by the Collector, but on appeal this order was set aside by the Commissioner, who appointed Niamat Ali as Lambardar of Patti Jamal Singh, Chak No. 94/G.B., Tehsil Jaranwala, district Lyallpur. The appellant is an Arain, which is the predominant tribe, is illiterate and was recom mended by the lower Revenue Officers. He owns only 42 kanals of land valued at Rs. 4,716 as against the Government demand of Rs. 6,907‑12‑
0. The respondent is a Gujjar, which is the second predominent tribe, holds 82 kanals of land, is literate and has a hereditary claim. The Collector did not mention the hereditary claim of the respondent and obviously did not take that into con sideration. That being so, his order cannot be called reasonable. When a suitable candidate with a hereditary claim and sufficient property is available, there is no reason why a person whose property is inadequate should be appointed only because his tribe is more numerous. When a tribe cannot produce a suitable person, it cannot be given representation only on the basis of their numbers. It would thus appear that there was ample justi fication for the order passed by the learned Commissioner. The result is that the appeal is dismissed. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.