P L D 1959 W (PLP)
IMAM DIN‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL RAHMAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. Z. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | IMAM DIN‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL RAHMAN‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Lambardar‑, (a) Lambardar‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Lambardar‑, (a) Lambardar‑ 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) (IMAM DIN‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL RAHMAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdur Rahim for Appellant.
- Mahmood Ahmad Qureshi for Asadullah Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Hereditary claim cannot be transferred‑
It can however be relinquished‑On relinquishment it passes to next heir only. Appointment‑
Order of Collector neither perverse nor unreasonable‑--No interference. (c) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Suitability of candidate and sufficient property enough‑Hereditary claim does not give pres criptive right.
Judgment & Decree
(c) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Suitability of candidate and sufficient property enough‑Hereditary claim does not give pres criptive right. Abdur Rahim for Appellant. Mahmood Ahmad Qureshi for Asadullah Khan for Respondent. The Collector appointed the appellant as Lambardar of Patti Jawahar Singh, Chak No. 84/JB, Tehsil Lyallpur. By his order dated 30‑7‑57, the Commissioner Multan Division, set aside this order and appointed respondent‑Abdur Rahman‑as Lambar dar. This revision petition is against that order.
2. This Patti has 174 Arains and 120 Rajputs. The appel lant is an Arain, worked as a temporary Lambardar, owns 181 acres of land and was recommended by the Naib Tahsildar, the Additional Tehsildar, the Tehsildar and the Revenue Assistant. The respondent is a Rajput and owns 31 acres of land. The Commissioner, set aside the order of the Collector on the ground that the respondent had a hereditary claim and should be appointed even though his property was inadequate as security for the Government demand. Sube Khan, father of Abdur Rahman, was a Lambardar Sube Khan left two sons Abdus Sattar and Abdur Rahman Abdus Sattar, offered to withdraw his claim in favour of Abdur Rahman. Abdus Sattar has two sons. According to R. n. R No. 178 of 1957‑58, a hereditary claim cannot A be transferred to any person. It can only be relinquished. On such relinquishment it passes to the next heir. In the present case, if Abdus Sattar relinquished his claim it passed to his eldest B son and not to the respondent. That being so the respondent has no hereditary claim and the only ground on which the' Commissioner, set aside the order of the Collector fails.
3. It is a well established convention that in Lambardari cases, the order of the Collector should not be set aside unless it is perverse or unreasonable. That is not so in the present case.
4. As has already been stated, the property of the respondent is inadequate as security for the Government demand. That being so, there is no reason why the respondent should bel appointed when another suitable person with sufficient property is available.
5. It has also to be noted that in the ruling cited above, hereditary claim does not give a prescriptive right. It is one of the considerations for appointment as a Lambardar. The result is that the appeal is allowed. The order of the Commissioner is set aside and that of the Collector appointing the appellant as Lambardar is restored. K. M. A Appeal allowed.