P L D 1966 W (PLP)
AKBAR ALI-Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | AKBAR ALI-Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER — Respondents |
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) (AKBAR ALI-Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- F. Rahman Shahid for Petitioner.
- Qazi Abdul Haq for Respondent No. 1.
- Ali Ahmad Awan and Malik Dost Muhammad for Respondent No. 2.
Headnotes / Summary
Practice Concurrent finding of fact by Collector and Commissioner-Not interfered with.
Judgment & Decree
Qazi Abdul Haq for Respondent No.
1. Ali Ahmad Awan and Malik Dost Muhammad for Respondent No.
2. This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 13th of May 1964, passed by Commissioner, Bahawalpur, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was accepted to the extent that, without affecting the appointment of the respondents, the claims of the petitioner could be considered if it was found that there was a third vacancy of the Lambardar in this village. The facts of the case are that, on account of the migration of two non-Muslim Lambardars, two vacancies were created. Nine -candidates applied for these two vacancies and, after considering the claims of all the candidates including the parties, the Collector appointed Ghulam Muhammad and Nazir Ahmad against these two vacancies. One Haji Ghulam Rasul and Akbar Ali petitioner filed two appeals before the Commissioner and the Commissioner passed the orders mentioned above. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has contended that the learned Collector was unduly influenced by hereditary considerations. I am afraid I cannot accept this contention. The learned Collector regarded the hereditary claim as one of the factors to be taken into consideration. It was after considering of all the aspects of the case that he preferred Ghulam Muhammad respondent to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred me to the report of the Tehsildar and the Revenue Assistant with a view to showing that the work of Ghulam Muhammad respondent as a temporary Lambardar was not satisfactory. It is true that the Tehsildar and the Revenue Assistant gave adverse reports to the respondent, but these reports were not accepted by the Collector on the ground that no specific complaints were ever made against Ghulam Muhammad, respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed his claim against Nazir Ahmad respondent although he has included him as a party in this revision. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having considered all the aspects of the case, I see no justification' for interfering with the concurrent findings of the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.