P L D 1964 W (PLP)
NIAZ MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus FEROZE KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1964 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | NIAZ MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus FEROZE KHAN‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Lambardar |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Lambardar as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmad, 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 1964 W (PLP) (NIAZ MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus FEROZE KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hasan Akhtar for Petitioner.
- Ghulam Ali Alvi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑Appointment‑Entire property of candidate in estate and not only Property in patti is to be taken into considera tion.
Judgment & Decree
‑Appointment‑Entire property of candidate in estate and not only Property in patti is to be taken into considera tion. Hasan Akhtar for Petitioner. Ghulam Ali Alvi for Respondent. This order relates to the Lambardari of village Sikandrabad, District Multan, which had become vacant after the migration of non‑Muslims to India. The Collector had appointed the respon dent Foroze Khan and his appointment was upheld by the learned Commissioner, Multan. The rival claimant Niaz Muhammad has come up in revision. The main point that has been argued before me is that Feroze Khan owns property which is mostly banjar and therefore not of much value. He tried to get some land by exchange in this particular patti but after the decision of the Commissioner in appeal the exchange had been cancelled. Again during the course of revision proceedings he obtained some more land in this patti by means of another exchange. It is urged that these exchanges are merely a device used by the respondent to increase his holding in order to bolster up his claim for the post. A reference in this connection to Land Revenue Rule 15 would be material. The relevant portion of this rule runs as follows: "In all first appointments of headmen regard shall be had amongst other matters too (b) extent of property in the estate possessed by the candidate." Thus it is not merely the property in the patti which has to be taken into consideration but in the entire estate. It is true that according to Laud Revenue Rule 16 (1) (c) it is the holding of a Lambardar in the estate or sub‑division of an estate in respect of which he is a Lambardar which has to be taken into consideration for his dismissal. Thus Munshl Khan who holds sufficient land in the estate though not very valuable in the patti concerned is not debarred under the Land Revenue Rules from appointment as a Lambardar. He has worked as a temporary Lambardar for a number of years and seems to have discharged his duties satisfactorily. He has been a Lambardar in India too, and I do not think sufficient grounds exist for me to interfere in revision. The petition stands rejected. K. M. A. Petition rejected.