Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL GHANI VS Respondent: SHER MUHAMMAD
P L D 1959 W
P L D 1959 W. P. (Rev.) 92
Before H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
ABDUL GHANI‑Petitioner
Versus
SHER MUHAMMAD‑Respondent
Revision Side No. 126 of 1956‑57, decided on " 7th March, 1957, District Lyallpur.
(a) Lambardari‑--
Candidate previous Lambardar in India of two villages‑No ground for prescriptive superiority over rival who was Lambardar of one village.
(b) Lambardari‑--
Candidates having been fined Rs. 5 for "refusal to get vaccinated"‑--Not sufficient justification for interference in revision.
Muhammad Hassan Khan for Petitioner.
ORDER
The holdings of the two contestants are roughly similar, that of the petitioner being slightly larger.
The respondent has been working as temporary Lambardar and in consequence there are some adverse reports against him also. But these adverse reports are, according to the Commis sioner's judgment, not of a serious nature.
In the above circumstances, there is no justification for any interference with what the Collector and the Commissioner have l4 decided. The respondent was a previous Lambardar in India as much as the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner was Lambardar in two villages does not give him any prescriptive superiority. The fact that the respondent was fined Rs. 5 in 1953 for an offence under section 188, P. P. C. with reference to his "refusal to get vaccinated" does not, in my opinion, provide a sufficient justification for interfering in favour of the petitioner at the stage of revision.
In the above circumstances, this petition for revision is dismissed without issuing notice to the other party.
A. H. Petition dismissed.