P L D 1959 W (PLP)
KALA‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHANI‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M, Z. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | KALA‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHANI‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 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 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M, Z. 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 1959 W (PLP) (KALA‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHANI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Anwar Rehman for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar‑ Appointment‑Tribal composition‑Objection to correctness not to be entertained at Revision stage. (b) Lambardar‑ Appointment‑Candidate's property should be sufficient to meet Government's demand‑Rival candidate, however, will only be preferred if he is head and shoulders above appointee.
Judgment & Decree
2. The vacancy arose as a result of the migration of the non‑Muslim Lambardar. The tribal composition of this Patti is as follows :‑ No. of families Area in acres Arain 103 207 Kumhar 12 47 Dogar 11 33 Rajput 8 31
3. The petitioner is a Kumhar. His property is 17 Kanals more than that of the respondent. The respondent is an Arain and was recommended by the lower Revenue Officers, His property is worth Rs. 6,373 as against the zar bharat of Rs. 8,456‑8‑
0. The Commissioner has directed that the question of taking security of Rs. 2,000 from him should be considered. It was urged that the tribal composition given in the Collector's order is incorrect. Such an objection should have been raised before the Collector so that an enquiry could have been made A before the Collector passed his order. If such an objection is raised at a later stage the normal conclusion is that it has been so raised for the purpose of delaying proceedings. In any case it was admitted before me that the number of Kumhars is very small as compared to Arains.
4. Normally it is not desirable to appoint as Lambardarsi those who do not have sufficient property to be adequate for security for the Government demand and I might have come to a different decision in the present case if the petitioner had been 'head and shoulders above the respondent with much more r property. As stated above the property which he possesses is only seventeen Kanals more than that of the respondent, The petitioner cannot be considered to be very much superior in the respect to the respondent. As for tribal composition his tribe (Kumhars) is a small minority.
5. The only other point urged at the time of arguments was that an Arain has been appointed in the other Patti and so a Kumhar should be appointed in this Patti. This could have been of some importance if Arains and Kumhars had been more or less equal in this Patti. This is not so.
6. It has been held in numerous rulings that the order of the Collector should not be interefered with unless it is perverse or unreasonable. That is not so in the present case.
7. The result is that the petition is rejected in limine. A. H. Petition rejected.