P L D 1959 W (PLP)
FATEH MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. Z. Khan Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | FATEH MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD‑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: M. Z. 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 1959 W (PLP) (FATEH MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdur Rahim for Petitioner.
- Ghulam Ali Alvi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Appointment‑Collector's order, if not unreason able, should not be upset.
Judgment & Decree
Abdur Rahim for Petitioner. Ghulam Ali Alvi for Respondent. The appellant was appointed as Lambardar of Patti Mansa Singh Chak No. 77/W. B., Tehsil Vehari, by the Collector. This order was set aside on appeal by the Commissioner, who appointed the respondent as Lambardar. Both the parties are Gujjars and have hereditary claims. The respondent holds 11 acres of land and not 8 acres as given in the Commissioner's order. He was recommended by the lower Revenue Officers. The appellant holds 17 kanals and 3 marlas of land in this Patti and 8‑1 acres in the adjoining Chak, where both the parties reside. On the facts stated above, the claims of the parties are more or less equal. It has been held in numerous rulings that the choice of the Collector should not be upset, unless it is perverse or un‑reasonable. If the choice of the Collector in the present case, cannot be said to be unreasonable. Under these circumstances, I do not find that there was adequate justification for upsetting the order of the Collector. The result is that the appeal is allowed and the order of the Collector appointing the appellant as Lambardar is restored. K. M. A. Appeal allowed.