Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1040 (PNJ)

Harjanak Singh v. Jagdev Singh

2000-08-30

K.S.JANJUA

body2000
ORDER K.S. Janjua, F.C. - On the death of Harcharan Singh Lambardar of village Pandori Nijjran, the process for appointment of new Lambardar was started. Proclamation was made and applications were invited. Harjanak Singh (petitioner) and Jagdev Singh (respondent) applied for the post. Naib Tehsildar recommended Harjanak Singh while Tehsildar and SDM recommended Jagdev Singh. District Collector Jalandhar appointed Harjanak Singh as Lambardar but this decision was upset by Commissioner Jalandhar Division who ruled in favour of Jagdev Singh. Hence the present appeal/petition. 2. Both candidates are eligible to be appointed as Lambardar and District Collectors choice should not generally be interfered with unless it is illegal or perverse, but in this case I am inclined to uphold the order of Commissioner Jalandhar Division in favour of Jagdev Singh because of the reasons given in succeeding paragraphs. 3. Admittedly, the Lambardari belongs to Gabli Patti and Harjanak Singh has no land in that Patti. Jagdev Singh fulfils the qualifications and has 55 kanals of land in Gabli Patti. The point which requires reconciliation here is whether a candidate who does not have land in the Patti to which Lambardari belongs, can be appointed as Lambardar for that Patti. Admittedly, there is no bar on such appointment. But such an appointment immediately attracts action under Rule 16(i)(c) of Land Revenue Rules, which renders such appointments invalid. Rule 16(i)(c) reads as follows :- "16(i)(c) - in any other estate he ceases to be a land-owner in the estate or sub-division of the estate in respect which he holds office." 4. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my pointed attention to 1998-PLJ-428 (an ex-serviceman has to be given preference) an 1997(2) PLJ-361 (owning of land in Patti is not necessary - candidate must have land in the estate). My attention was also drawn in 1997-PLJ-361 according to which Sh. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my pointed attention to 1998-PLJ-428 (an ex-serviceman has to be given preference) an 1997(2) PLJ-361 (owning of land in Patti is not necessary - candidate must have land in the estate). My attention was also drawn in 1997-PLJ-361 according to which Sh. S.R. Bunger, Financial Commissioner has ruled as under :- "(a) Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 - Lambardar, appointment of - Owning of landed property in the particular Patti in that Revenue Estate - Not necessary - Rule 16(i)(c) does not prescribe that a candidate must own landed property in the Patti - All vacancies of Lambardars - Filled up for the Estate and not for a particular Patti - All residents of the village eligible to apply for the post of Lambardar - Extent of property owned in the Estate as a whole to be taken into consideration - Ownership of land in a particular Patti - Not the pre-condition for such appointment - Wrong to say that candidate to be appointed as Lambardar must own landed property in the specific Patti for which he is to be appointed - Not the requirement of law either under the Act or the Rules, that a candidate must own landed property in the specific Patti - Requirement of ownership of property in the Estate - Insistence on ownership of property in the Patti, Taraf, Panna or Sub-Division of an Estate - Not justified." 5. While this rule holds sway for appointment, such appointment will be immediately debarred by Rule 16(i)(c). I also till recently was of the view, that only holding of land in the estate only in necessary and that holding of land in Patti to which Lambardari related was not necessary. But in this case I am in complete agreement with the views expressed by Sh. B.S. Grewal, FC in LLT-PLJ Vol.XLIII-1964-81 and Sh. Miles Irving FC in (1934) Vol.XIII Page 47. These are seminal rulings on the point of Lambardari in a Patti. According to the views expressed in these rulings an appointment can be made but such an appointment has to be set aside immediately under rule 16(i)(c) for not holding land in Sub Division of the estate. 6. Miles Irving FC in (1934) Vol.XIII Page 47. These are seminal rulings on the point of Lambardari in a Patti. According to the views expressed in these rulings an appointment can be made but such an appointment has to be set aside immediately under rule 16(i)(c) for not holding land in Sub Division of the estate. 6. Without going into the merits of the candidates, the question before me is whether it is in any circumstances admissible, justified, logical or even wise to appoint persons whose immediate dismissal is necessitated by the same appointing authority. It would obviously be unnecessary to have a rule permitting the Collector to appoint a person against whom he has to start the dismissal proceedings as soon as the order of appointment is passed. A curious and piquant situation arises out of the order of Collector in this case where although there is no bar on such appointments, these appointments and the action to appoint will compel the Collector to start dismissal proceedings under rule 16(i)(c) for his dismissal. Action of the Collector in making any such type of appointments will be void ab initio. 7. Therefore, in this context, I am of the view that by implication holding of land in Patti/Taraf/Sub-Estate to which Lambardari belongs, is a prerequisite qualification of holding land in Patti. This condition is absolute. If a Lambardar must be dismissed immediately for not having land in the Patti he should not be appointed without this qualification in that Patti. It is natural that the intention of the rule is that Lambardar must have land in the Patti/Taraf/Sub Estate in respect of which he holds office. 8. Rule 15 regarding appointment of Lambardars cannot be read in isolation. It has to be read and interpreted with other Rules. The words "ceased to hold" according to Section 16(i)(c) cannot be interpreted to admit of a man being appointed initially without the qualification of owning land in Patti/Taraf/Sub-Estate. It would be most illogical if not absurd to first appoint a candidate without land in the Patti as Lambardar for that Patti and then dismiss him for not being qualified to hold that office. Such a Lambardar would be functus officio. 9. The rule for appointment has to be harmonious with the rules of dismissal. A rule enabling an appointment has to stand the test of scrutiny as regards the rules for dismissal. Such a Lambardar would be functus officio. 9. The rule for appointment has to be harmonious with the rules of dismissal. A rule enabling an appointment has to stand the test of scrutiny as regards the rules for dismissal. Each rule has to stand the test of scrutiny for entire set of rules. If there are contradictions or grey areas the case law will prevail. The rules for appointment and dismissal are not contradictory but are supplemental in nature to each other. The meaning of word estate in rule 15 will have to be harmonious with rule 16(i)(c). I am inclined to take a holistic view and rule in favour of the Respondents. 10. The petition is dismissed, Commissioners order is upheld and ruling clearly goes in favour of Jagdev Singh for being appointed as Lambardar of village Pandori Nijjran. Ordered accordingly. To be communicated. Petition dismissed.