P L D (Rev (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YASIN‑Petitioner Versus ABDUR RAHMAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YASIN‑Petitioner Versus ABDUR RAHMAN‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Lambardari‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Lambardari‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: H. A. Majid, 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 (Rev (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YASIN‑Petitioner Versus ABDUR RAHMAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Nadir for Petitioner.
- Kh. Abdur Rahim assisted by Ali Akbar and Ghulam Ali Alvi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Appointment‑Evacuee vacancy‑Hereditary claim in India of minor candidate with numerical predominance of tribe preferred as against area of holdings and concentration of settlers from same Indian District. The hereditary claim of a refugee candidate for appoint ment as Lambardar, in an evacuee vacancy, deserves the maximum possible consideration. Such a candidate, though a minor, belonging to the predominant Arain tribe of refugee settlers, was preferred, in this case, without regard to area of holdings or to the respective strength of migrant‑settlers from the same Indian District.
Judgment & Decree
H. A. MAJID.‑The vacancy caused by the migration of the evacuee Lambardar has been filled by the appointment of the respondent. The petitioner failed in his appeal before the Commissioner also. The petitioner is an Arain and the respondent a Rajput. In this Patti, there are 45 Rajputs with 166 acres of land against 65 Arains with 144 acres of land. The petitioner originally belonged to Gurdaspur, which is now represented by 30 Arain holders of land, the extent of their holdings being 56 acres. The respondent belonged to Hoshiarpur, which is now represented by 40 Rajput‑holders, the extent of their holdings being 142 acres. Thus, it is clear that the Arains in this Patti are more numerous than Rajputs though the area held by the Rajputs is some acres more than that held by the Arains. The group of Rajputs from Hoshtarpur seems more powerful than the group of Arains from Gurdas pur. Altogether, it cannot be said that the respondent belongs to a community which has greater influence in the village than the family of the petitioner. The petitioner's father was a Lambardar in India. and if the family had continued in India, the petitioner would have' stepped into the father's shoes as a Lambardar. The respondent's connection with another Lambardar family is not as close as that of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, I would prefer that the petitioner should become Lambardar in this estate. There is no doubt that his holding is small. Similarly, there is no doubt that he is still a minor. Yet one has to take into account the fact that his hereditary claim in an appointment caused by the migration of non‑Muslims deserves the maximum con sideration possible. He can be asked to give reasonable security for the payment of Government dues and he is sufficiently grown up to give, an impression that a Sarbrah would not be needed for a very lengthy period. He should not be deprived of the Lambardari simply because a com paratively rich Rajput is available in the estate. For the above reasons, I accept this petition of revison and direct that Muhammad Yasin petitioner should be appointed Lambardar instead of Abdur Rahman respondent. He should be required to furnish reasonable security for the payment of Government dues to the satisfaction of the Collector. A. H. Petition accepted.