P L D 1957 W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD RASHID‑Petitioner Versus Syed NAZAR HUSSAIN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1957 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RASHID‑Petitioner Versus Syed NAZAR HUSSAIN‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Lambardar‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1957 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Lambardar‑ 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 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 1957 W (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RASHID‑Petitioner Versus Syed NAZAR HUSSAIN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Abdur Rahim, Advocate for Petitioner.
- Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Candidate fined for not making report about case of small pox‑No disqualification for appointment as Lambardar.
Judgment & Decree
H. A. MAJID.‑
The Commissioner interfered in this case and replace the present petitioner by appointment of the respondent as Lambardar in this estate constituted by a number of Graduate grants. The main reason advanced by the Commissioner was that the present petitioner had once been convicted for negligence of duty and fined Rs.
5. It has since been ascertained that the conviction was under the Chaukidara Rules framed under section 39‑A of the Punjab Laws Act, and related to the omission‑ on the part of the present petitioner to make a report about a case of small pox in the estate. . The petitioner was not the Lambardar at the time though the Collector had given the Dhal Bachh to him for recovering the land revenue. It is, therefore, not understood why he was considered liable under the Punjab Laws Act. The Magistrate who tried him has recorded in his register of summary trials that he had pleaded guilty and was warned after he had been convicted. A warning cannot be granted if a man is convicted of an offence under the Punjab Laws Act. It may be a more legal way of disposing of such cases if the Magistrate were to record " Accused warned. Case dropped ". In any case, it is clear that the present peti tioner was never fined for negligence of duty. The petitioner has as good qualities as the respondent but scores over him on the following points :‑ (1) The petitioner is one of the Arain grantees who out number the Syed grantees by 5 to 2 ; (2) The petitioner was a Lambardar in his original estate which is now in India ; and (3) The petitioner has a second degree, viz. LL. B. to his credit. I therefore, consider that the Commissioner's interference in the Collector's choice was not justified. I accordingly accept this petition for revision and direct that the present petitioner should be restored to the Lambardari appointment. K.M.A. Petition accepted.