P L D 1959 W (PLP)
ABDUL HAMID‑Petitioner Versus CHIRAGH DIN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. Z. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMID‑Petitioner Versus CHIRAGH DIN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 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 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. Z. 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 1959 W (PLP) (ABDUL HAMID‑Petitioner Versus CHIRAGH DIN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Kh. Abdur Rahim for Appellant.
- Sh. Muhammad 1qbal for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar ‑ Appointment ‑ Collector's order ‑ Board of Revenue will not interfere unless order is perverse or unreasonable.
Judgment & Decree
Lambardar ‑ Appointment ‑ Collector's order ‑ Board of Revenue will not interfere unless order is perverse or unreasonable. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Appellant. Sh. Muhammad 1qbal for Respondent. Both the parties are Rajputs. The appellant was appointed as Lambardar by the Collector but this order was set aside on appeal by the Commissioner who appointed the respondent. The order of the Commissioner shows that he took into consideration the holding of the respondent in the estate and found it more than that of the appellant. For this reason he did not take into consideration the holding outside the estate. It report from the Collector regarding the extent of property at the time of Collector's order was called for. This report shows that 55 Kanals and 3 Marlas of land was confirmed in favour of the respondent on 28‑4‑52 and 26 Kanals and 4 Marlas on 21‑3‑58 In\ view of the fact that the claim of the respondent is to the t extent of the property left by him he cannot be denied its benefit only because confirmation of part of the property was delayed. That being so the total holding of the respondent, comes to 81 Kanals 17 Marlas. He further states that he has another 6 Kanals of property which is included in 33 Kanals and 3 Marlas mentioned by the Collector. This property cannot be taken into consideration as the Collector has reported that the mutations are sub judice and the respondent is not likely to inherit the Property; The value of this property comes to Rs. 8,005 as against the Government demand of Rs. 11,24‑2‑
0. The appellant held 84 Kanals and 6 Marlas of land at the time of the Collector's order. In addition he held property in the adjoining Chak and the value of his total holding was much more than the Government demand. In view of what is stated above and the fact that both the parties have hereditary claim, the order of the Collector appointing the appellant as Lambardar A cannot be called perverse or unreasonable. There are numerous rulings that the Collector's order in Lambardari cases should not be interferred with unless it is perverse or unreasonable. The result is that the appeal is allowed and the order of the Collector appointing the appellant as Lambardar is restored. K. M. A./A. H. Appeal allowed.