P L D (PLP)
ABDUL FATEH‑Petitioner Versus Mufti GHAIS‑UD‑DIN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | ABDUL FATEH‑Petitioner Versus Mufti GHAIS‑UD‑DIN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (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 (PLP) (ABDUL FATEH‑Petitioner Versus Mufti GHAIS‑UD‑DIN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sultan Muhammad Khan for Petitioner.
- M. A. Zullah for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Absentee heir may not be appointed as Lambardar‑Punjab Land Revenue Rules, rr. 16(ii) (c) & 17(ii). (b) Practice‑Concurrent finding of fact by Collector and Commissioner‑Not interfered with.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Practice‑Concurrent finding of fact by Collector and Commissioner‑Not interfered with. Sultan Muhammad Khan for Petitioner. M. A. Zullah for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 25th of February 1965, passed by Commissioner, Multan, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The facts of the case are that, after the death of respondent's father, he was appointed as a Lambardar under rule 17(ii) in spite of the fact that previously he was not living in the chak. The petitioner went in appeal to the Commissioner, but it was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The case is governed by rule 17(ii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules read with rule 16 (ii) (c). The Collector can refuse to appoint a person claiming to be an heir on a ground which would necessitate or justify the dismissal of a person from the office of Lambardar. Rule 16 (ii) lays down that, if the absence from the estate is such that a person would be unable to discharge the duties of a Lambardar, the Collector may dismiss him. It is, therefore, clear that the discretion rests with the Collector, and in spite of the fact that a person is not a permanent resident or the village he can still be' appointed as a Lambardar. This is exactly what has been done in this case. The discretion exercised by the learned Collector has been endorsed by the learned Commissioner. I, therefore, see no justification for any interference with their concurrent finding. The revision fails and is' dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.