YLR 2002

2002 PLP 3393 (YLR)

Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (JUDICIAL), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another‑‑‑ Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
N/A
Honorable Judges
Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2002 PLP 3393 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J
Parties Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (JUDICIAL), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another‑‑‑ Respondents
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 3393 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 3393 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 3393 (YLR) (Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (JUDICIAL), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another‑‑‑ Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Syed Zafar Ali Shah for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is violative of the law laid down in the case of Mst. Nasreen laid v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue (PLD 1993 Lahore 423) which judgment has since been upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan vide a judgment dated 15‑5‑1994 in Civil Petition No.828 of 1993. No one has turned up for the respondent No. 2 who is represented by Hafiz Muhammad Yoausaf, Advocate whose name stands duly listed in the Cause List for today but no one has turned up despite repeated calls. He is therefore, proceeded against ex parte.

Judgment & Decree

‑‑‑ Art. 25‑‑‑Discrimination on the basis of sex‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Any discrimination against women for the sole reason that they are women is violative of An. 25 of the Constitution. Shrin Munir and others v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Health, Lahore and another PLD 1990 SC 295 ref. Syed Zafar Ali Shah for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th February, 2002. On the death of Abbas Ali, Lumbardar of Chak No.263/R.B. Tehsil and District Faisalabad on 2‑3‑1968, proceedings were commenced for appointment of the successor Lumbardar in the said revenue estate. Inter alia, the petitioner and respondent No.2 applied for appointment. The petitioner is the daughter of the said Abbas Ali deceased while respondent No.2 is the brother of the said deceased Lumbardar. The District Collector vide an order dated 28‑8‑1990 (Annex‑A) appointed the petitioner as a Lumbardar. Respondent No.2 filed an appeal who dismissed the same on 27‑1‑1991. A revision petition filed by respondent No.2, however, was allowed by the learned respondent No.1 on 2‑8‑1994.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is violative of the law laid down in the case of Mst. Nasreen laid v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue (PLD 1993 Lahore 423) which judgment has since been upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan vide a judgment dated 15‑5‑1994 in Civil Petition No.828 of 1993. No one has turned up for the respondent No. 2 who is represented by Hafiz Muhammad Yoausaf, Advocate whose name stands duly listed in the Cause List for today but no one has turned up despite repeated calls. He is therefore, proceeded against ex parte.

3. I have gone through the several documents placed on record of this Writ petition, with the assistance of the learned counsel. By now it is well‑settled that in the mater of appointment of a Lumbardar the opinion of the District Collector holds much weight. I find that after comparing the comparative merits of the two candidates, he found that apart from the fact that she is daughter of the deceased Lumbardar she is residing in Chak No.263/R.B. where her children are studying and that after the death of her father she had been performing the duties 6f a Lumbardar. The only objection before the respondent No.2 was that she is a female being a non‑resident of the said Chak, is not a fit person to be appointed as a Lumbardar. The learned District Collector found the fact that the petitioner is resident of Chak and proceeded to appoint her as Lumbardar. The learned Commissioner while dealing with the appeal of the respondent No.2 agreed with the Collector. The learned Member, Board of Revenue proceeded to set aside the order only with reference to rule 19(2)(d) of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968. The precise reason is that she is a female. Now the matter stands settled in the case of Shrin Munir and others v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary Health, Lahore and another (PLD 1990 SC 295) whereby any discrimination against women for the sole reason that they are women, has been held to be violative of Article 25 of the Constitution. Now on the same touchstone the said rule 19(2)(d) of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968 has been held to be violative of the said provisions of the Constitution by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan while disallowing Civil Petition No.828/L of 1993 against the said judgment of this Court being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I, therefore, do find that the learned respondent No. 1 while passing the impugned order has proceeded in violation of the law as laid down by the superior judiciary of the country and his order is without lawful authority.

4. This writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order of respondent No. 1 dated 2‑8‑1994 is declared to be without lawful authority and as such void. The result would be that the orders passed by the District Collector and upheld by the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division on 27‑1‑1991 shall hold the field.

5. No orders as to the costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./Z‑95/L Petition allowed.