P L D 1959 W (PLP)
ABDUL HAQ‑Petitioner Versus HAKAM ALI‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | ABDUL HAQ‑Petitioner Versus HAKAM ALI‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Lambardar‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Lambardar‑ 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: H. A. Majid, 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) (ABDUL HAQ‑Petitioner Versus HAKAM ALI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Afzal Bajwa for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Appointment by Collector of candidate who is old and has poor eye‑sight‑--Confirmation of appointment by Commissioner who was fully conscious of these facts‑--No interference by Board of Revenue in revision.
Judgment & Decree
Appointment by Collector of candidate who is old and has poor eye‑sight‑--Confirmation of appointment by Commissioner who was fully conscious of these facts‑--No interference by Board of Revenue in revision. Muhammad Afzal Bajwa for Petitioner. The main point stressed is that the respondent is old. It, however, appears that the Collector and the Commissioner were fully conscious of the old age of the respondent and also of the fact that his eye‑sight was rather poor. If the two officers are satisfied that this is not a handicap against the satisfactory performance of Lambardari duties, I cannot look at this item to any great extent at the stage of revision. The respondent has a larger holding than the petitioner. His clan owns a larger area than the clan of the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel says that the statement of the Collector on this point is not correct, but he is not in a position to show what are his arguments for this contention, especially as the grounds of appeal, which he preferred before the Commissioner, are also silent on this subject. The petitioner was not supported by the Police Department. He was on the list of suspects and even if he has succeeded in getting his name removed from that list, yet this remains a circumstance adverse to him. In the above circumstances, I dismiss this petition for revision without issuing notice to the other party. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.