Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLD 789 = 1992 CLC 588
Board of Revenue, Punjab
R.O.R. No.1153 of 1988, decided on 20th January, 1991.
Presented By: Before Hafeezullah Ishaq,
S.M. Masud for petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Tufail for
Respondent

Member (Revenue) KHADIM RASUL---Petitioner

VERSUS

MUHAMMAD SHAM---Respondent

Law:

Section:

  West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968--- ----R. 18---Action can be taken against a Lambardar under R.18, West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, if he was not living in the village in which he was a Lambardar. West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968--- ----R. 19---Appointment of Lambardar---Strong hereditary claim could not and should not, be ignored on the basis of prospective conduct of the nearest eligible heir who should be given an opportunity to prove his capabilities by his performance  for  a  period  of  time  as  a Lambardar---Petitioner's claim being hereditary, in the absence of any disqualifications incurred by the father of the petitioner during his lifetime or by the petitioner himself, he was entitled to be appointed to the office of Lambardar. West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968---- ---Rr. 17 & 19---Appointment of Lambardar---Hereditary claim---Extent of holding should not be given more weight than the fact that it should be sufficient security against the demand of land revenue of that estate, although in cases falling under R.17, West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, extent of holding could also be taken as a measure of candidate's influence. PLD 1959 (W.P.) Rev. 91 ref S.M. Masud for petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Tufail for Respondent. ORDER Brief facts of the case are that on the death of Ghulam Rasul Lambardar of village Rai pur, Tehsil Shakargarh, applications were invited to fill in the resultant vacancy. The present parties, besides Ahmad Din, applied for the post. Later on, Ahmad Din withdrew his candidature in favour of the petitioner leaving the present parties in the field. The Collector on 26-10-1987 appointed the respondent as Lambardar. The petitioner although the elder son of the deceased Lambardar was ignored on the basis of his absence from the estate. That order was assailed in appeal before the Commissioner but to no avail. Hence this revision petition under section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's father was Lambardar and the vacancy had been caused due to his death. Therefore, the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register