Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SARDAR MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: ABDUL HAYE
P L D 1960 W
P L D 1960 W. P. (Rev.) 67
Before M. Z. Khan, Member Board of Revenue
West Pakistan
SARDAR MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner
versus
ABDUL HAYE‑Respondent
Revision Side No. 15 of 1958‑59, decided on 2nd December, 1958, District Sheikhupura.
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Minor may be appointed if otherwise quaked.
(b) Lambardar‑Order of Collector neither perverse nor unreasonable‑No interference. Ghulam Bari Salimi for Petitioner.
ORDER
The petitioner was selected neither by the Collector nor by the Commissioner. Both the parties are Arains. The petitioner holds 51 Kanals and 14 Marlas of land and worked as a temporary Lambardar.
The respondent has a hereditary claim, holds 229 Kanals of land, was recommended by all the Revenue Officers and is a minor. It was contended that the respondent has no hereditary claim. In support of this contention certified; copy of the pedigree‑table was produced. It showed that Qasim Ali Khan had two sons namely Abdul Majid and Muhammad Bashir. A certified copy of the mutation register was also produced which showed that Abdul Hayee is the son of Abdul Aziz. These documents do not prove the contention that the respondent has no hereditary claim, as his grand‑father Abdul Hamid was a Lambardar.
The respondent is 15 years of age and in view of his hereditary claim and much larger holding, I do not find sufficient justification for giving him merely because he is a minor. The work could be carried on during his minority by a Sarbrah. There are numerous rulings that the order of the Collector in Lambardari cases should not be interfered with unless it is perverse or unreasonable. That is not so in the present case.
The result is that the petition is rejected in limine.
K. M. A. Petition rejected.