P L D 1977 Lahore 876 (PLP)
Haji MUHAMMAD ILYAS-Petitioner Versus FAZAL HUSSAIN ETc.-Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1977 Lahore 876 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | K. M. A. Samadani, J |
| Parties | Haji MUHAMMAD ILYAS-Petitioner Versus FAZAL HUSSAIN ETc.-Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Lambardar |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1977 Lahore 876 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Lambardar as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1977 Lahore 876 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: K. M. A. Samadani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1977 Lahore 876 (PLP) (Haji MUHAMMAD ILYAS-Petitioner Versus FAZAL HUSSAIN ETc.-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- G. S. Abdus Salam, Ch. Abdur Rehman and Rana Muhammed Bashir for Petitioner.
- Rana Muhammad Sarwar Khan for Respondent No. 1.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
- Date of hearing : 29th June 1977.
Headnotes / Summary
Appointment of successor-Order of Commissioner and Board of Revenue deciding question of succession to deceased Lambardar according to rule of primogeniture-Held, neither without lawful authority nor lacking in legal effect. Badar Din v. Sardar Ali P L D 1960 Rev. 77 distinguished. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) -- Art. 199-Writ jurisdiction-High Court exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199 neither sits in appeal nor in revision.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner and respondent No. 1 are brothers inter se. On the death of their father, who was a Lambardar, these two brothers along with five others were candidates for the office of Lambardar. The Collector appointed the petitioner but on appeal the Commissioner set aside the Collector's order and appointed respondent No. 1 as Lambardar. The Board of Revenue upheld the Commissioner's order. Hence this writ petition.
2. The writ petition was admitted to examine why in spite of a clear ruling given in Badar Din v. Sardar Ali (P L D 1960 Rev. 77), against an old and incapacitated person being appointed Lambardar, the Revenue authorities thought it fit to appoint respondent No. 1 who is also said to be an old man with poor eyesight and failing health. But the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has rightly pointed out that the reported case has no bearing on the question of succession to the office of Lambardari. It governs only a case of fresh appointment.
3. The Revenue authorities concerned have judiciously decided the question of succession to the deceased Lambardar keeping in view the rule of primogeniture. Therefore, neither the order of the Board of Revenue whether passed in review or revision nor that of the Commissioner can be] said to be without lawful authority or lacking in legal effect as no defect in the jurisdiction of either has been pointed out. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued the case only on the relative merits of petitioner and respondent No.
1. Those arguments can be of no B avail before this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution as in the exercise of that jurisdiction this Court neither sits in appeal nor in revision.
4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. ???? s. Q.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accordingly dismissed.