Case Details

Citation(s)
1966 SLG 4988 = 1966 SLD 4988 = 1966 PLD 99
West Pakistan
Appeal No. 121 of 1964-65, decided on 27th January 1966, District Multan.
Presented By: I. U. Khan
Sheikh Muhammad Shafi for Appellant.   Raja Muhammad Akram for
Respondent No. 1  

Ch. NOOR MUHAMMAD-Appellant  

VERSUS

  MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND OTHERS---Respondents

Law: Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968

Section: 77,72

(a) Lambardar--Permanent appointment in place of non-Muslim Lambardar to be governed by r. IS of Punjab Land Revenue Rules.   P L D 1960 W. P. (Rev.) 77; P L D 1959 W. P. (Rev.) 72 and P L D 1961 W. P. (Rev.) 106 ref.   Lambardar-Appointment is made on administrative grounds and not on wishes of inhabitants of village.   Lambardar-Person            working            as         temporary          Lambardar         in     place     of         non-Muslim Lambardar-Cannot claim permanent appointment as of right.   ORDER   This is a second appeal filed against an order dated the 6th of April 1965, passed by Commissioner, Multan, whereby the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2 was accepted but the appeal filed by the petitioner against respondent No. 2 was rejected.   The facts of the case are that there are two pattis in this village. In one patti, one Pir Muhammad Khan, a Jat, was already working as a Lambardar. In the second patti, there was a non-Muslim Lambardar and, after migration, Muhammad Sharif respondent No. 1 was appointed as a temporary Lambardar from 1951 onwards. When the question of filling up this vacancy permanently came up for consideration, five candidates including the parties applied for the vacancy. After considering the claims of all, the Collector appointed Ghulam Muhammad; Muhammad Sharif respondent No. 1 and Noor Muhammad petitioner went in appeal to the Commissioner, who passed the orders mentioned above. Hence this second appeal.   I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appointment has been made under rule 15 and so far as hereditary considerations and the extent of property are concerned, respondent No. 1 has a greater claim. As regards services and personal influence, they more or less balance each other, but, as regards strength of community, the petitioner belongs to the majority community…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register