Case Details

Citation(s)
1962 SLG = 1962 SLD 2636 = 1962 PLD 68
West Pakistan
Revision No. 438 of 1960-61, decided on 18th October 1961, District Lyallpur.  
Presented By: A. M. Khan Leghari Member Board of Revenue
  Abdul Majid Asghar for Petitioner.   Mohsin Shah and H. A. Sherwani for
Respondents.  

  BAQAR KHAN-Petitioner  

VERSUS

  RAB NAWAZ KHAN AND ANOTHER-Respondents  

Law:

Section:

  Lambardar-Appointment of successor to Lambardar dis missed for selling away his land-No lineal descendant in existence --Successor to be the nearest heir by rule of primogeniture under r, 17 (ii), Punjab Land Revenue Rules-Rules give no discretion to Collector-Rule 17 (ii) (b); r. 17 (iii); r. 15 not in point-Elder uncle appointed as against younger.   Practice-Revenue Officers expected to refer to specific provisions of law in dealing with judicial cases.   ORDER   Ghulam Muhammad Lambardar of Chak No. 343/J.B., Tehsil Toba Tek Singh, sold his land and was, therefore, removed from the post of Lambardar on 23-6-1959. The Collector, Lyallpur, under his order dated 14-1-1961, appointed his younger uncle Rab Nawaz. Baqir Khan, his elder uncle went up in appeal to the Commissioner who rejected it. Hence the present revision.   It is distressing to find that the Officers below have taken a wrong view f n a case which clearly had to be decided in accor dance with the rules of primogeniture. The reason advanced by the Collector for ignoring this rule is that: -   "in the present case none of the nearest heirs of the removed Lambardar has applied for this post. I, therefore, do not consider it a hereditary post and decide to fill up this vacancy according to provisions of rule 17 (iii) which says that failing the appointment of an heir, successor to the office shall be appointed in the manner and with regard to the considerations described in rule 15."   The Commissioner's observations on the subject are as follows: -   "It has been contended by the counsel for the appellant that the Collector has erred In dealing with this case under rule 15, instead of rule 17 (ii) of the Land Revenue Rules, He referred to the provisions contained in rule 17 (ii) of the said rules according to which the nearest eligible heir according to rule of primogeniture has a right to succeed. He has further urged that since the appellant is elder brother of the respondent, his appointment should have been made against the vacancy in preference to the latter, in view of the rules referred to above and other rulings quoted by him. The…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register