P L D 1965 W (PLP)
NOOR AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus TAJA‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NOOR AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus TAJA‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Lambardar |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Lambardar as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1965 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 1965 W (PLP) (NOOR AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus TAJA‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Farooq Hussain for Petitioner.
- Akhtar Ahmad for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑Candidate not owning any land in Patti (sub division of estate)‑Cannot be considered for appointment "at all" ‑Punjab Land Revenue Rules, rr. 15 & 16 (i) (c)‑Rule 16 (i) (c) mandatory‑[P L D 1964 W. P. (Rev.) 16 dissented from].
Judgment & Decree
‑Candidate not owning any land in Patti (sub division of estate)‑Cannot be considered for appointment "at all" ‑Punjab Land Revenue Rules, rr. 15 & 16 (i) (c)‑Rule 16 (i) (c) mandatory‑[P L D 1964 W. P. (Rev.) 16 dissented from]. Farooq Hussain for Petitioner. Akhtar Ahmad for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 30th of December 1963, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The facts of the case are that, on the death of Kalu Lambar dar, the respondent was appointed as Lambardar. The petitioner went in appeal but it was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was established that the petitioner does not own any land in the Patti. It was primarily for this reason that his claim was rejected by the learned Collector. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to P L D 1964 W. P. (Rev.)
16. It is true that, in this ruling, it was held that it was not necessary that the candidate should own land in the Patti. It would be sufficient if he owns land in the estate as a whole. The provisions of rule 16 (i) (c) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules are however quite clear. Even if a Lambardar is appointed under rule 15, he shall automatically stand dismissed under provision of rule 16(i)(c), if he is a person who does not possess land in the sub‑division in respect of which he is to be appointed as a Lambardar. The provisions in this rule are mandatory and I must, therefore, respectfully differ from the views expressed by my learned brother. If a person does not own any land in the sub‑division in which the post of Lambardar has to be filled, he cannot be considered for appointment at all. I need not discuss other points on which reliance was placed by the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner. In the circumstances of the case there is no justification for' any in terference with the concurrent findings of the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. A. H. Petition dismissed.