P L D 1961 W (PLP)
SHAHAB‑UD‑DIN‑Petitioner Versus MUBARAK ALI‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1961 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad, Member, Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | SHAHAB‑UD‑DIN‑Petitioner Versus MUBARAK ALI‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1961 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 1961 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmad, Member, Board of Revenue,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1961 W (PLP) (SHAHAB‑UD‑DIN‑Petitioner Versus MUBARAK ALI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hasan Akhtar for Petitioner.
- Wajid Hussain for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Application may be made to Collector before appointment is decided upon. Muhammad All v. Haji Ahmad P L D 1956 W. P. (Rev.) 47 dissented from. (b) Revision‑Question of fact may be agitated before Board, though in practice Board confines itself to legal issues.
Judgment & Decree
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Application may be made to Collector before appointment is decided upon. Muhammad All v. Haji Ahmad P L D 1956 W. P. (Rev.) 47 dissented from. (b) Revision‑Question of fact may be agitated before Board, though in practice Board confines itself to legal issues. Hasan Akhtar for Petitioner. Wajid Hussain for Respondent. This is a revision petition filed by Shahabuddin whose appointment a5 Lambardar of Chak No. 20/8BR, District Multan was set aside by the learned Commissioner vide his order dated 20‑1‑60 and the respondent Mubarik Ali was appointed instead. The main point that has been taken up before me is that the respondent had not applied to the Tehsildar within the period laid down for inviting applications and his case should not therefore have been considered following the decision of Mr. Majid in Muhammad Ali v. Haji Ahmad (P L D 1956 W. P. (Rev.) 47) Mr. Majid held in that case that an application after the date fixed by the Assistant Collector could not help a candidate even if made before the Collector passes final orders. With due deference to the opinion expressed by Mr. Majid I am not inclined to accept his view. The Authority for making the appointment off Lambardar vests in the Collector and all the earlier proceedings before a Tahsildar or a Revenue Assistant are merely in the nature of a preliminary enquiry. It will therefore be quite in order if an application is made to the 'Collector before he decides the case. The Collector may direct a further enquiry. on that application or may consider it suo motu when making the appointment. There is no legal provision for the Tehsildar or the Revenue Assistant to invite application though the existing procedure under which this is done has the support of a long standing practice. The Collector, however, is not there by deprived of his powers to invite applications and come to a! decision thereon on merits. There is, therefore, no force in this contention. Several other points relating to question of facts have also been raised for example that no relation of the respondent is employed in the Army and an affidavit has also been submitted that the petitioner was not fined for cutting District Board timber etc. These questions of fact should really have been taken up either before the Collector or the Commissioner. Though it is competent to agitate these questions in the Board of Revenue, a practice, however, is growing to confine consideration to legal issues. It would, therefore, decline to interfere in the order passed by the learned Commissioner and reject this revision petition. K. M. A. Petition rejected.