P L D 1966 W (PLP)
GAMAN KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus WALI MUHAMMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | GAMAN KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus WALI MUHAMMAD‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 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 1966 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. U. 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 1966 W (PLP) (GAMAN KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus WALI MUHAMMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Abdul Latif for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Arif for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar ‑ Appointment ‑ Colony estate ‑ Non‑resident appointed with direction to take up residence in estate Order-complied with‑No interference in revision.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Arif for Respondent. This order will dispose of the following two revisions:‑
(1) Gaman Khan v. Wali Muhammad (Revision No. 1092). (2) Abdul Khaliq v. Wali Muhammad (Revision No. 1093). These two revisions have been filed against orders dated the 10th of December 1964, passed by Commissioner, Bahawalpur, whereby the appeals preferred by the petitioners were dismissed. The petitioners were working as temporary Lambardars in this Chak. When the question for appointing a permanent Lambardar came up for consideration, the petitioners as well as the respondent applied for the post. The Collector preferred the respondent in spite of the fact that he was a non‑resident. The petitioners went in appeals to the Commissioner but the appears were rejected and the Commissioner directed that the respondent should take up his residence in the Chak forthwith. Hence these revisions. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. His main contention has been that there are two posts of Lambardar a permanent basis. In this connection, he has said that this statement should be accepted, because they are two temporary Lambardars already working and it was an administra tive distribution according to which Dhal Baches were given' to the two Lambardars for specified areas. I am afraid, none of these considerations would justify the assumption that the two posts of permanent Lambardars existed in the Chak. According to the record, the area so far colonized is more than what would be the criterion for the post of one Lambardar but less than what would justify the appointment of two Lambardars. It is, therefore, clear that the stage has not yet arrived when the appointment of two permanent Lambardars would be justified. As regards the merits of the parties, the only defect from which the respondent suffers was non‑residence. This disqualification has now been removed because the respondent has complied with the direction given by the learned Commissioner. In these circumstances, I do not see any justification for interfering with the concurrent findings of the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner. Both the revisions fail and are dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revisions dismissed.