P L D 1966 W (PLP)
Mirza MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑Petitioner Versus Qazi GHULAM SHABBIR‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan' |
| Parties | Mirza MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑Petitioner Versus Qazi GHULAM SHABBIR‑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) (Mirza MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑Petitioner Versus Qazi GHULAM SHABBIR‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Aziz Ahmad for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Farooq for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar‑Appointment on dismissal of previous Lambardar made on basis of r. 17 (i) (a) instead of r. 17 (iii), Punjab Land Revenue Rules‑Appointment set side with direction to make fresh appointment.
Judgment & Decree
Lambardar‑Appointment on dismissal of previous Lambardar made on basis of r. 17 (i) (a) instead of r. 17 (iii), Punjab Land Revenue Rules‑Appointment set side with direction to make fresh appointment. Ch. Aziz Ahmad for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Farooq for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 3rd of March 1965, passed by Commissioner, Sargodha, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The facts of the case are that Qazi Umar Draz Khan, former Lambardar of the Chak was dismissed. When the question of filling up the vacancy came up for consideration, seven candidates came forward. Ultimately the Collector selected the respondent on the consideration that the case was covered by rule 17 (i) (a). The respondent went in appeal to the Commissioner, but the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the respondent was the only nearest eligible heir according to the rule of primogeniture. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In this case, no certified copy of the pedigree‑table was produced, but, from the finding of the learned Collector, it is clear that the great grandfather of the dismissed Lambardar and the grandfather of the respondent were brothers. If that was so, the respondent would not be descendant in the male line of the paternal great grandfather of the last incumbent and the case would not, therefore, fall under rule 17 (i) (a). In these circumstances, the' considerations, on which the appointment was made by the learned Collector, and upheld by the learned Commissioner were not justified. In this case, the correct thing would have been to make an appointment under rule 17 (iii), of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. I, therefore, accept the revision and remand the case for further decision on merits under the provisions of rule 17 (iii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. K. M. A. Revision accepted.