Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: REHMAT KHAN VS Respondent: MUNIR AHMAD
P L D 1964 W
P L D 1964 W. P. (Rev.) 51
Before Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue,
West Pakistan
REHMAT KHAN‑---Petitioner
versus
MUNIR AHMAD‑---Respondent
Revision No. 958 of 1962‑63, decided on 4th September 1963, District Sialkot.
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Refugee or local‑Recognized distinction.
(b) Lambardar--Appointment Minor difference in landed pro perty of candidates Ignorable.
(c) Lambardar---‑Appointment Decision by lower Court neither foolish nor perverse‑No interference in revision.
ORDER
This case relates to the Lambardari of village Dulchike, dis trict Sialkot. The post had become vacant after the migration of non‑Muslims to India and the Collector appointed Munir Ahmad, respondent, a displaced person to it in preference to Rehmat Khan, petitioner, who is a local. The learned Additional Commissioner has upheld this decision. A revision has now been filed.
Two main points have been taken up in the revision. Firstly, that displaced persons should no longer be considered as a com munity and tribal consideration should carry greater weight. The argument advanced in support of this plea is that after fifteen years of independence and co‑existence of displaced persons and locals in an estate it would be incorrect and wrong to perpetuate the distinction. Theoretically it is sound reasoning but if the argument is followed to its logical conclusion would it be sound to carry on with these tribal distinctions after almost 14 centuries of Islam. The inexorable fact all the same is that displaced persons and locals have not yet coalesced together. Various laws relating to settlement of displaced persons still are in force and they have not yet been fully and finally settled. As a practical administrative question longer the distinction continues and has to be recognized.
The second plea taken up is that the petitioner is in a some what better position as he owns more land and has rendered services to the State as a temporary Lambardar. The respondent also has been a temporary Lambardar in this village. The difference in the landed property owned by them in the estate is only) one acre and has rightly been ignored by the officers below.
It would thus be clear that the decision arrived at by the officers below is neither foolish nor perverse; on the contrary) there are good grounds to support it. I would therefore decline to interfere in revision and maintain the order passed.
The petition stands dismissed in lirnine.
K. M. A.
Petition dismissed.