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.
R.O.R. No.225 of 2007, decided on 25th February, 2008.
----R.17---Appointment of Lamberdar---Petitioner was appointed by District Officer (Revenue) after considering merits and demerits of all the candidates---Petitioner had already been collecting land revenue from the landowners and had been performing social duties in better way as compared to respondent, who was appointed instead of the petitioner---Court below did not give any cogent reason to appoint respondent as lambardar of the Chak concerned instead of the petitioner---Impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to Executive District Officer (Revenue), for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with the choice of inhabitants of the Chak and law. Muhammad Irshad Chaudhry for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Sharif for Respondent.
The above captioned revision petition has been filed against the order, dated 8-11-2006 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bhawalnagar, whereby he accepted the appeal of present respondent. 2. Brief facts of the case have already been discussed in the impugned orders. There is no need to repeat again. 3. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the District Officer (Revenue), Bahawalnagar after considering merits and demerits of all the candidates, appointed petitioner as lambardar of the Chak. He further contended that petitioner has already been collecting land revenue from the land owners and has been performing social duties in better way as compared to respondent, whereas "respondent was not having good character as a case vide F.I.R. No.330 of 1999 is registered against him. He prayed to accept the revision petition and set aside the impugned order. 4. The counsel for the respondent argued that the respondent was recommended by the Patwari, Girdawar, Tehsildar and Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Chistian for appointment as Lambardar, petitioner with mala fide intention jumped in and was appointed Lambardar by the District Officer (Revenue), Bhawalnagar. He further stated that respondent was appointed Lambardar against Patti of Abdul Jabbar, keeping in view seven years experience and other consideration contained in Rule 17 of Land Revenue Rules. He prayed to dismiss the revision petition. 5. Heard. Record perused. The lower Court does not give any cogent reason to appoint the respondent as Lambardar of the Chak instead of the petitioner. In view of this I set aside the impugned order and remand case back to Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bahawalnagar, who should decide the matter afresh accordingly with the choice of the inhabitants of the Chak and law. H.B.T./15/Rev. Case remanded.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer