P L D 1959 (W (PLP)
KHADIM HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BAKHSH‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | A. T. Naqvi, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | KHADIM HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BAKHSH‑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: A. T. Naqvi, 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) (KHADIM HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BAKHSH‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Kh. Abdur Rahim for Appellant.
- Ch. Muhammad Sidique for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar ‑Appointment‑Proper and reasonable exercise of discretion by Collector‑No interference. (b) Lambardar‑ Appointment‑Candidate once fined Rs. 10 under S. 278, Pakistan Penal Code‑Does not debar him from appointment as Lambardar.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Sidique for Respondent. This is a second appeal against the order of the Commis sioner, Multan, Division, dated 19‑10‑1957 by which Muhammad Bakhsh, the respondent, was appointed as a Lambardar in Patti Lachman Singh of Chak No. 97/RB, Tehsil Jaranwala, District Lyallpur, in place of Khadim Hussain, the appellant, appointed by the Collector. 2 The examination of the order of the learned Commissioner shows that he was influenced wrongly by inserting the community figures of Patti Hardit Singh in his order, whereas, this case relates to Patti Lachman Singh, as is evident from the following statement Figures given in Actual figures Number of tribe. the order of of Patti the Commissioner. Lachman Singh. No. Area. No. Area. Arains 138 410 74 259 Rajputs 14 71 50 210 Keeping the wrong figures in view, the Commissioner was influenced, otherwise and set aside the order of the Collector, Lyallpur, passed on 25‑1‑1957, by which Khadam Hussain, the appellant, was appointed as a Lambardar. The Arains hold less than 1/3 of the area of the Patti and it is further noteworthy that an Arain had already been appointed as Lambardar in the other Patti namely Hardit Singh. Therefore, the Collector formulated a very reasonable view that taking into consideration all the circumstances it would be appropriate that a Rajput should be appointed in this Patti. The exercise of discretion by the Collector in this matter was proper and reasonable and was strengthened by the consideration that out of the total of 560 Khewatdars and the total area of 1721 acres, the number of Arains Khewatdars is 212, holding 669 acres. It will be un reasonable that both the Lambardaris should go to them.
3. It has further been argued by the counsel for they appellant that Muhammad Bakhsh, the respondent, was fined Rs. 10 under section 278 of the P. P. C. This offence technically does not debar him from appointment as a Lambardar but in view of the afore‑mentioned observations the order of the Commissioner is set aside and that of the Collector by which Khadim Hussain, the appellant, was appointed as a Lambardar, is restored. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.