P L D 1959 W (PLP)
Syed AULAD HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL MAJID‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. Z. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | Syed AULAD HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL MAJID‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 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 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) (Syed AULAD HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL MAJID‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar‑Appointment‑Candidate's allotment of land not a confirmed one‑Candidate cannot be said to be holding land Ineligible for appointment. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner in person. This is a petition in revision under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against order dated 23‑10‑57, passed by the Commissioner, Multan Division, by which he upheld order dated 25‑6‑57, passed by the Collector of Lyallpur appointing the respondent as Lambardar of Patti Raghbir Singh, Chak No. 365/J.B., Tehsil Toba Tek Singh, District Lyallpur.
2. The vacancy arose as a result of the migration of the non‑Muslim Lambardar. Rajputs predominate in the Patti and the person appointed is from that community.
3. The petitioner is a Syed, who are in a negligible minority in the Patti. The main point against the petitioner is that no land has been confirmed in his favour under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, because he belongs to the non‑agreed areas. He has got eight acres of land for maintenance purposes. Unless the land is confirmed he cannot be said to hold land in Patti and is thus disqualified from appointment as a Lambardar. When he was appointed as a temporary Lambardar the Collector came to the finding that he has a hereditary claim, although he could not produce the certificate from the Central Record Room, as revenue records for the non‑agreed areas have not been exchanged. The order of the Collector in that case shows that he appointed the petitioner as a temporary Lambardar as he thought that in such appointments it was not necessary that the person appointed must own property in the Patti.
4. In view of the fact that the petitioner has at the moment no land, which has been confirmed in his favour, I do not find sufficient grounds for interference with the order passed by the learned Commissioner.
5. The result is that the petition is rejected without issuing notice to the opposite party. A. H. Petition rejected.