P L D 1962 W (PLP)
ALI MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus IBRAHIM‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1962 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmed, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | ALI MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus IBRAHIM‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1962 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 1962 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmed, 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 1962 W (PLP) (ALI MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus IBRAHIM‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Aftab Hussain for Appellant
Headnotes / Summary
Appeal‑Finding by Commissioner that certain candidate is not too old to perform duties as Lambardar is finding of fact‑Cannot be allowed to be re‑agitated in second appeal.
Judgment & Decree
Aftab Hussain for Appellant The Collector, Gujranwala, appointed the appellant Ali Muhammad as Lambardar of village Mari Bhandra, in place of Bahadur Singh a non‑Muslim who had migrated to India. The learned Additional Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector and appointed the respondent Ibrahim instead as Lambardar. Aggrieved with this order Ali Muhammad has come up in second appeal. Two points have been agitated in the appeal. Firstly, that the respondent is too old to act satisfactorily as a Lambardar as stated by the Collector and his appointment by the learned Additional Commissioner should be set aside. This is a question of fact and cannot be agitated in a second appeal the learned Additional Commissioner has come to a definite and clear finding that the respondent "is not too old to perform the duties of this post" and this finding should stand. The second point raised is that though the two claimants belong to the same tribe they originally hail from Karnal district and Patiala State. It is stated that one of the Lambardars has already gone to an ex‑resident of Karnal District and the Lambardari in dispute should therefore go to a resident of Patoa; a State. As already observed both the rival claimants belong to the same tribe which dominates this estate. Karnal District and Patiala State are contiguous areas and it would be drawing rather a fine distinction if Lambardaris were to be decided in a manner that has been argued, i.e.. depending on the original place of residence of the parties to such an extent as to exclude a candidate who is otherwise considered fit and suitable by the local officers. In my opinion this distinction which is too fine to put into 'practical shape may result in increased litigation and consequent ill‑feelings amongst village communities. It would, therefore, be inadvisable to give that much importance to the place of original residence from which the parties have migrated to Pakistan. Besides a lapse of about 14 years should have leveled these differences to a considerable extent. In my opinion there is no ground for interference on this ground in second appeal which accordingly stands rejected. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.