P L D 1957 W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ALI‑Petitioner Versus JALAL DIN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1957 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI‑Petitioner Versus JALAL DIN‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Lambardar‑, (b) Lambardar‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1957 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Lambardar‑, (b) 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 High Court bench comprising: N/A.
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 ALI‑Petitioner Versus JALAL DIN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Candidate who was Lambardar in East Punjab and other candidate whose elder brother was Lambardar in East Punjab, but who does not claim Lambardari appointment are on equal footings.
Appointment in place of Non Muslim Candidate whose community is larger in number can be ignored when he is Government servant and is unable to reside in village.
Judgment & Decree
H. A. MAJID.‑
The points in favour of the petitioner are :‑ (1) that he was himself the Lambardar in East Punjab whereas the respondent's elder brother was a Lambardar, and (2) that he is an Arain and therefore belongs to the community which has 100 landowners in this estate holding 498 acres against Rajputs whose number is 96 but hold 585 acres. If the respondent's elder brother now does not claim a Lambardari appointment in this estate or any other estate, the respondent's hereditary claim to a Lambardari appoint ment is firmly established. The result will be that the petitioner will not be able to seek any preference on that account. There is no doubt that the Arains are lightly larger in numbers than the Rajputs in this estate. But the latter hold a larger amount of land. In any case, the referential right of the petitioner on this account is out‑weighed by his disqualification arising From the fact that he is a Government servant and‑has‑perforce to remain absent from estate. The petitioner has mentioned to me to day that the respondent should be disqualified for the following reasons :‑ (1) That when he sought the temporary Lambardari in this estate, he made a statement to the effect that he had been a Lambardar in East Punjab since 1929 ; and (2) That he was arrested and held in the lock‑up as a defaulter in 1954, when he was working as a temporary Lambardar. The respondent's explanations regarding these two matters are as follows :‑ (1) That when he said that he had been a Lambardar since 1929, he meant that he had been working along with his father and elder brother who were successively Lambardars ; and (2) That the arrears in question were arrears of rent of evacuee property due from certain refugee allottees who had left the village. He has no further arrears to clear in this behalf. Altogether, I am of the view that I should not interfere with the Commissioner's selection at this stage. I, therefore, dismiss this petition for revision. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.