P L D 1966 W (PLP)
NIZAMUDDIN‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH BAKHSH‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | NIZAMUDDIN‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH BAKHSH‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 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 1966 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. U. 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 1966 W (PLP) (NIZAMUDDIN‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH BAKHSH‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Wajid Hussain for Petitioner.
- Syed Kamal Mustafa Bukhari for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar‑Appointment‑Resigning Lambardar's brother can be appointed in his place‑Rule 17(ii)(b)(1), Punjab Land Revenue Rules has no application.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Wajid Hussain for Petitioner. Syed Kamal Mustafa Bukhari for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 18th of February 1964, passed by Commissioner, Multan, Division, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The facts of the case are that Allah Ditta Lambardar of the village resigned. Applications were invited to fill up the vacancy. Five persons applied for the post. Ultimately the Collector appointed the respondent, the brother of previous Lambardar. Nizamuddin went in appeal to the Commissioner, but the appeal was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He wishes me to interfere on the ground that the respondent is al brother of the former Lambardar. I find that the previous Lambardar resigned but was not dismissed and the question for' applying the principle laid down in rule 17 (ii) (b) (1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules does not, therefore, arise. I also find that the petitioner was convicted in 1953. In these circumstances, I see no justification for any interference with the concurrent findings of the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.