Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
[Lahore]
Before Fazl-i-Mahmood. J
MUHA4MAD IBAD ALI KHAN--Petitioner
versus
MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB, LAHORE--Respondent
Writ Petition No. 807 of 1986, decided on 24th February, 1986.
---Art. 199--West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 36- Appointment of Lambardar--Conditions for--Compassionate plea- Constitutional jurisdictions, exercise of--Condition laid down by Tribunals below and upheld by Board of Revenue of appointee Lambardar requiring him to resign from his Bank employment otherwise he would be removed from office, held, could not be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court on compassionate plea--Such compassionate plea could be made basis of fresh approach before Board of Revenue.
Rao Hamid Mukhtar Khan for Petitioner.
This writ petition is directed against the order of learned Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore in the matter of appointment of a Lambardar in an Abadkari Chak.
2. The learned Member while upholding the findings of the tribunals below laid down a condition that the petitioner shall resign from the bank employment within a period of three months, otherwise he will be removed from the office.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the compassionate plea that despite the fact that it is admitted in the orders of tribunals below that the petitioner's family is residing in the Chak and he is daily coming by motor cycle through a pucca road, the condition laid down by the learned Member to resign from the employment outside the Chak within a period of three months will work to his serious prejudice and financial interest as the petitioner is going to get retirement after some time and in this way Government interest would not in any manner suffer. He relies in this behalf on the reports of the subordinate revenue officers.
3. I have considered the submissions of the petitioner and I find that the precedent cited by him is not on all fours with the present case, the petitioners counsel made certain commitments before the learned Member, Board of Revenue. In case the petitioner could not bring to the notice of learned member the case of hardship as is being limelighted before this Court, it is open for the petitioner to again approach the learned Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue on compassionate or other Pleas and it is for the Earned Member to consider the pleas being raised before him.
4. Speaking for this Court, I am not minded, in these circumstances, to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction. It is disposed of accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer