P L D 1959 W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD BOOTA‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BOOTA‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑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: H. A. Majid, 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) (MUHAMMAD BOOTA‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdur Rahim for Petitioner.
- Fazle Ghani Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar‑--Appointment‑--Tribal basis‑--Several incumbrancies--‑Candidates from more than one tribe may be appointed in the interest of satisfaction of villagers as a whole.
Judgment & Decree
The holding of the petitioner in this estate is 7 acres whereas the holding of the respondent is only 4 acres. The respondent has 8 acres in Chak No. 205 G. B., which is 4 miles away. He has pro bably to get some more land confirmed in his favour in some other village either in this district or in some other district. The respondent has two advantages over the petitioner, viz.:‑ (1) He is literate whereas the petitioner is not; and (2) The respondent belongs to the Jat tribe which is the majority tribe in the Patti. The above mentioned advantages are to some extent washed away by the fact that the respondent's residence in this village at the time when the Collector appointed him Lambardar was doubtful. The respondent admittedly started living in Chak No. 205 G. B., on migrating from India, because his father had left his residential property in that estate. The respondent has not so far succeeded in obtaining a residential Ihata in Chak No. 203/G. B. His alleged residence in this Chak is admittedly with some relatives. It would be odd that a man owing 4 acres in this Chak should live with his relatives when he has 8 acres in a neighbouring village in which he possesses residential property of his own. There is no doubt that the respondent can be made to live in Chak No. 203/G.B., if he is continued as Lambardar. The fact that the respondent belongs to the majority tribe in the Patti is also to some extent undone by the fact that two other Jat Lambardars have been appointed in this estate. A third Lambardari has gone to a Rajput. Thus, if the Lambardari in dispute goes to a Gujjar, the villagers are likely to consider themselves more satisfied than otherwise. In the above circumstances, I consider it proper to interfere in revision in favour of the petitioner. I direct that he should replace the respondent as Lambardar. K. M. A. Petition accepted.