P L D 1966 W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD QALAB ALI‑Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD QALAB ALI‑Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD‑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 QALAB ALI‑Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shaikh Muhammad Shafi for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Salim for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar ‑ Appointment ‑ Absentee may be appointed Lambardar‑Absentee not appointed by Collector‑No interference justified.
Judgment & Decree
This is a revision filed against an order dated the 14th of December 1964, passed by Commissioner, Multan, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The facts of the case are that, when the question of appointing a permanent Lambardar in this chak came up for consideration four candidates applied before the Tahsildar and two put in application before the Collector. Subsequently, however, two did not pursue and the real contest before the Collector, therefore, lay between four candidates including the parties. The Collector considered the claims of all the aspirants and ultimately selected the respondent. The petitioner went in appeal to the Commis sioner but it was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has rightly contended that the petitioner is more educated and has rendered more personal services. Both these claims were duly considered by the learned Collector. The petitioner was, however, ignored mainly on the ground that he was a non‑resident in the chak. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is prepared to have his residence in the chak, if he is appointed as a Lambardar. It is also stated that the same offer was made before the Collector but there is nothing on record to show that this was actually done because the Collector's order does not make any mention about it. It is true that the petitioner offered to take up his residence before the Commissioner, but that is no ground for upsetting the order passed by the learned Collector who considered all aspects of the case and then gave a decision. It is also true that a non‑resident can be appointed as a Lambardar. This holds good when the Collector appoints an absentee Lambardar. No interference would be justified if the Collector does not wish to appoint an absentee as a Lambardar because a suitable resident candidate is available. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not see any 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.