P L D 1957 W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD KHAN‑ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1957 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KHAN‑ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1957 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 1957 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1957 W (PLP) (MUHAMMAD KHAN‑ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Zafay for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Mere facts that candidate worked as Sarbrah Lambardar and owes excess land than of his rival does not give him preference over others.
Judgment & Decree
H. A. MAJID.‑
I have been asked to interfere in revision because:‑-- (1) the petitioner's ownership is 48 Kanals according to the Collector's order whereas the respondent's ownership is only 46 Kanals according to the same order, (2) the petitioner has worked as Sarbrah Lambardar for a number of years, and (3) the petitioner belongs to the majority tribe whereas the respondent represents the single family in the village. Regarding grounds No. (1), it is strange that the Collector's record contains a large number of reports and it is difficult to form any opinion regarding the exact extent of the ownership of both the parties. It, however, appears that the above mentioned figures of 46 and 48 Kanals are correct though they relate only to the specified Patti or Pattis in which the Lambardari appointment has been made. The respondent appears to have some land in his ownership in other Pattis of the estate whereas the petitioner does not appear to own any such land. Altogether, there is no doubt) in my mind that the respondent is a bigger landowner in that estate than the petitioner. In any case, an excess of 2 Kanals in the ownership of the petitioner would not justify interference at the present stage. The fact that the petitioner has been a Sarbrah Lambardar does not give him any preference over the respondent. There is little discussion in the Collector's file regarding the tribal composition of the village. The petitioner states before me that he is a Ranjha, that there is no difference between Ranjhas and Bhakkar and that Chathas and others are also related to him. . These statements of the petitioner seem strange and do not incline me to an examination of the issue afresh or in detail. In the above circumstances, I dismiss this petition for revision. K.M.A. Petition dismissed.