P L D 1966 W (PLP)
SHAMIR KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SALAM GUL KHAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | SHAMIR KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SALAM GUL KHAN‑‑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) (SHAMIR KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SALAM GUL KHAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Nawaz Cheema on behalf of Ch. Muhammad Anwar Buttar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar ‑ Appointment ‑ Candidate belonging to majority community, one of the considerations for appointment. (b) Revision ‑ Additional evidence ‑ Not to be allowed. (c) Practice‑Concurrent finding of fact by Collector and Commissioner‑Not interfered with.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Nawaz Cheema on behalf of Ch. Muhammad Anwar Buttar for Petitioner. The respondent is not present, but, in the circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to insist upon his appearance. This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 16th of June 1965, passed by Commissioner, Multan Division, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts of the case are that, when the case for appointing a temporary Lambardar came up for consideration, seven candidates applied. Ultimately the Collector selected the respondent. The petitioner went in appeal to the Commissioner, but it was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only point in favour of the petitioner is that he belongs to the majority community, but this is one of the considerations which has to be taken into account when making such appointments., Neither party had any hereditary claim, but all other factors mentioned in rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules were in favour of the respondent. That is why he was given preference. The learned counsel for the petitioner wishes me to rely on the additional evidence he wishes to produce at this stage. Additional evidence should not be entertained at the revision al stage, because the point for consideration is whether the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner passed correct orders or not on the material that was available before them. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no 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.