Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1152 (PNJ)

Rachhpal Singh v. Harket Singh

2000-09-22

RUPAN DEOL BAJAJ

body2000
ORDER Rupan Deol Bajaj, FC. - This is an appeal under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 30.3.1998, passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala vide which he had accepted the appeal filed by Harket Singh, respondent against the order dated 28.7.1995, passed by the District Collector, Rupnagar in which the Collector had appointed the petitioner as Lambardar. 2. The brief facts of the case are that consequent upon the death of Shri Madhu Sudan Singh, Lambardar of village Barari, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar, the post of Lambardar fell vacant. The vacancy was duly notified after observing all the necessary formalities and six persons applied for the post. Of the six, two persons absented themselves in the proceedings before the Naib Tehsildar Nurpur Bedi and one in the proceedings before the A.C. IInd Grade (Tehsildar) Anandpur Sahib and ex parte orders were passed against him. Of the remaining three, Mohinder Singh and Harket Singh are related to each other, being father and son. The Collector, Rupnagar appointed the 3nd candidate Shri Rachhpal Singh as Lambardar of village Barari vide her order dated 27.9.1995 adjudging him to be the most suitable for the post. 3. Mohinder Singh did not file any appeal. Therefore, the order of the Collector was final qua him. Only Harket Singh, son of Mohinder Singh filed an appeal against the orders of the District Collector, Rupnagar before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. The Commissioner after hearing both the parties, remanded the case to the Collector, Rupnagar for a fresh decision with certain remarks and guide-lines. It is better if they are re-produced in original :- "The primary point which has come up in arguments is that it is a large village where Rajputs and as well as Jatt Sikh families are residing. The strength of Rajput families was approximately 50, whereas that of the Jatt Sikh families was about 200. While the appointment of Lambardar is not community based, yet it cannot be ignored that even previous Lambardar was also from the minority community of Rajputs. Shri Mohinder Singh and as well as Harket Singh, appellant belong to Jatt Sikh community, which was the dominant faction and majority community of the village and this time chance should be given to them. Shri Mohinder Singh and as well as Harket Singh, appellant belong to Jatt Sikh community, which was the dominant faction and majority community of the village and this time chance should be given to them. In regard to the withdrawal of the recommendations, the appellant (Harket Singh) has maintained that he could not extend favours to those, who earlier appeared in his behalf, but later withdrew the recommendation. I have considered the above position and I find that the point of the majority community in the village has not been given its due consideration. While it may be considered that a suitable candidate has to be appointed, it cannot be denied that being member of majority community has always its specific advantage. The previous Lambardar was from the Rajput community, therefore, only a person, who had some extra merits should have been considered. In the present scenario not much difference had been observed in the merits of the appellant vis-a-vis the respondent. The serious issue was regarding the withdrawal of recommendation. The previous support was later resiled. It is essential to conduct enquiry into such issues. It is surprising that persons earlier extended their support in favour of the appellant but later on withdrew that support. The reasons for such withdrawal need to be determined. In view of the above, appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the file is remanded to the District Collector with the direction to allow opportunity to the appellant to bring on record the reasons leading to the withdrawal of support which has been cited as the main reason by the District Collector for ignoring the claim of the appellant. In addition, the point of being the member of the majority and dominant section may also be given its due consideration. With the above observations, the party present has been advised to appeal before him on 30.6.1998." 4-5. Aggrieved by this order, Shri Rachhpal Singh, son of Ran Singh has filed the present R.O.A. in this Court. In addition, the point of being the member of the majority and dominant section may also be given its due consideration. With the above observations, the party present has been advised to appeal before him on 30.6.1998." 4-5. Aggrieved by this order, Shri Rachhpal Singh, son of Ran Singh has filed the present R.O.A. in this Court. The main contentions in the appeal as well as arguments are that the Commissioner did not consider the written arguments filed by him while passing the said order, that the A.C. IInd Grade (Tehsildar) and A.C. Ist Grade (SDO)(C) both had recommended the name of the appellant and the Collector had appointed him and the Commissioner had not considered this vital aspect; that the choice of the Collector had unnecessarily been interfered with; that the appellant had been working as Lambardar since his appointment on 25.11.1995 to date and thereby balance of convenience was in his favour; that the appellant possessed about three and a half times the land i.e. 32K-19M land in village Barari when compared with the respondent who owned only 12K-1M land; that the candidate who had withdrawn in favour of the respondent Harket Singh was none other than his father, Mohinder Singh; that Mohinder Singh, the father of the respondent had also applied for the post of Lambardar but his claim was rejected by the Collector on the ground that he was also Sarpanch of the village and, therefore, two posts i.e. Lambardar and Sarpanch should not be given to the same person. The respondent was the son of the Sarpanch and giving the post of Lambardar to him would mean to give both the posts to one family. The counsel stated that the petitioner was available for service on the full time basis in the village, was educated being middle pass, and much more mature and experienced than the respondent. He was also supported by a resolution of the Panchayat. He also had a hereditary claim since the deceased Lambardar Madhu Sudan Singh was his paternal uncle (Saka Chacha). This is borne out from the report of A.C. Ist Grade Anandpur Sahib on page 127/128 of A.C.s file. He stated that it was incorrect that the majority in the village consisted of Jatt Sikh house holds. He also had a hereditary claim since the deceased Lambardar Madhu Sudan Singh was his paternal uncle (Saka Chacha). This is borne out from the report of A.C. Ist Grade Anandpur Sahib on page 127/128 of A.C.s file. He stated that it was incorrect that the majority in the village consisted of Jatt Sikh house holds. In fact, the total number of houses was 117, of which 30 house holds were from Rajput community, 40 of Jatt community and remaining 47 house holds were of Brahimins, Harijans and Tarkhans. So the Jatt Sikhs were not of such overbearing majority that the Lambardar was necessarily to be selected from their community. Counsel also stated that three persons Bhajan Lal, Sanat Ram and Raunki had filed a complaint against the respondent-Mohinder Singh that he had forged their signatures in his own favour in a petition presented to the Tehsildar. So the Jatt Sikhs were not of such overbearing majority that the Lambardar was necessarily to be selected from their community. Counsel also stated that three persons Bhajan Lal, Sanat Ram and Raunki had filed a complaint against the respondent-Mohinder Singh that he had forged their signatures in his own favour in a petition presented to the Tehsildar. In support he cited 1990 PLJ page 276 (b) "Punjab Land Revenue Act, Section 13 - Appeal in Lambardar case - Choice of Collector - Cannot be interfered with unless proved that Collectors reasoning perverse or that he committed illegality in passing the order - Collector after considering all the factors appointed Lambardar - Choice of Collector should not be disturbed unless there are over-whelming reasons - Commissioner coming to a different assumption about relative merits of candidates - Cannot be considered a justification for setting aside order of Collector." He also cited 1992 PLJ page 190 "Punjab Land Revenue Act, Rule 15 - Lambardar appoint of - Of Lambardar and Sarpanch - Should not be combined in one person who is equally competent, if not better and independent candidate available - Candidate Sarpanch of village - Not a disqualification for post of Lambardar - Appropriate if two posts not manned by one person as far as possible." He also cited 1997(1) PLJ page 575 (a) "Punjab Land Revenue Act, Section 16 - Revision in Lambardari case - Choice of Collector upheld in appeal by Commissioner - Order of Collector and Commissioner illegal inasmuch as important factor ignored - Financial Commissioner set aside both orders of Collector and Commissioner and appointed Lambardar in revision." (c) "Punjab Land Revenue Act, Section 16 - Revision of Lambardari case - Interference when called for - Orders of Collector and Commissioner when proved to be illegal or perverse - Financial Commissioner can interfere in revision in such type of appointment of Lambardar." 6. Finally he prayed that the order of the Commissioner was perverse and illegal, which required intervention by the Financial Commissioner. 7. The counsel for the respondent stated that his client was a young man of 25 years as against the age of the petitioner which was 45 years, was more qualified than the petitioner as he was 10th class passed compared to the middle pass qualification of the petitioner. 7. The counsel for the respondent stated that his client was a young man of 25 years as against the age of the petitioner which was 45 years, was more qualified than the petitioner as he was 10th class passed compared to the middle pass qualification of the petitioner. He cited PLJ 1976 page 300 (b) "Punjab Land Revenue Rules - Rule 15 - Appointment of Lambardar - Candidate should be : (i) capable, (ii) reliable, and (iii) preferably educated." He owned 12K-1M of land and dairy farm and had good report from the Police. He was also the son of the sitting Sarpanch of the village. He cited 1997(2) page 146 (d) "Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 - Lambardar, appointment of - Influence of family in the village - Candidates father sitting Sarpanch of village Panchayat - Cannot be construed adversely qua the interest of candidate - Positive point which shows influence of family in the village - A factor to be reckoned with at the time of appointment of Lambardar." He stated that the Collector had ignored his client since three persons had given the affidavits in his favour and had later withdrawn them. The Commissioner had rightly directed the Collector to make enquiries as why to this happened. Counsel stated that withdrawal of application already given in favour of a candidate can be manipulated at any time and cannot be made the base for choice of Lambardar. The Collector should make his own secret enquiry and satisfy himself regarding the suitability of a candidate rather than to depend only upon such representation showing popularity of a candidate and the Commissioner had rightly remanded the case on this point also. He cited PLJ 1976 page 300 F.C. Counsel also stated that the claim of the petitioner was based on the heredity factor which had been declared unconstitutional by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. He cited 1973 PLJ page 677. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and given careful consideration to their contentions and judgments, cited in support and have also gone through the record of the case. He cited 1973 PLJ page 677. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and given careful consideration to their contentions and judgments, cited in support and have also gone through the record of the case. I find that the Collector while adjudging the suitability of Rachhpal Singh for the post of Lambardar has no where stated she has found him more suitable on account of fact that he was a Rajput although she has noted the contentions of both parties on the point of majority population/caste in detail in her order. While passing the orders, the Collector stated :- "I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the candidates, and gone through the evidence on record. As far as candidate Mohinder Singh is concerned, it is certainly desirable that the post of Sarpanch and Lambardar should not be combined in one person. As regards Harket Singh, candidate, while he is otherwise qualified, the fact that some people of the village whose recommendations were produced in his favour have later resiled does go against him. Rachhpal Singh, candidate appears suitable both regards to age and educational qualifications and he has also sufficient land holdings and his candidature has been generally supported in the village. His name has been recommended by the S.D.O. (C) as well as the Tehsildar, Anandpur Sahib. I am of the considered view that Rachhpal Singh is the most suitable candidate and he is appointed Lambardar of village Barari, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar in place of Shri Madhu Sudan Singh, deceased Lambardar." 9. It is, therefore, seen that the learned Collector has not given any weightage to the caste factor in the case of Rachhpal Singh while adjudging his suitability but has correctly judged him as comparatively the most suitable candidate on other criteria. The post is neither reserved for the minority nor can be usurped by the majority. The suitability of a candidate for appointment as Lambardar has nothing to do with the community to which he belongs or to their numerical strength in the village. The Commissioners observations to the effect that last time the Lambardar was a Rajput and now the Lambardar should go to the Jatt Sikhs cannot be sustained. The suitability of a candidate for appointment as Lambardar has nothing to do with the community to which he belongs or to their numerical strength in the village. The Commissioners observations to the effect that last time the Lambardar was a Rajput and now the Lambardar should go to the Jatt Sikhs cannot be sustained. The strength of a community in the village could be one of the many factors to be considered but cannot be given the kind of over-riding importance which the Commissioner sought to give it, particularly when the facts are the Jatt Sikhs comprise only 40 out of the total 117 households in the village, which was not refuted by the respondent. 10. Similarly, the other direction in the Commissioners order to the Collector to make an enquiry into the reasons why certain persons who had earlier supported Harket Singh, had now resided from their earlier position also has no rationale (The record in this regard was checked up. An application dated nil, submitted to the Tehsildar Anandpur Sahib in favour of Harket Singhs candidature is available on page 123/126 on A.C. IInd Grades file, containing the signatures/thumb impressions of a large number of persons in which the names of said Bhajan Lal, Sanat Ram and Raunki are also included. Bhajan Lal has appended his signature in Hindi, Sanat Ram in Punjabi whereas thumb impression of Raunki is available on page 127-132 of the same file, three affidavits on a Rs. 10/- stamp paper each are available given by Bhajan Lal, son of Bantu Ram, Sanat Ram, son of Hukma, that they had never signed in favour of said Harket Singh, and in fact they never put their signatures but only thumb impressions since they were illiterate and any such signatures are forged. Similarly Raunki Ram, son of Labhu Ram stated that he had never appended thumb impression in favour of Harket Singh. I feel nothing will come up in this enquiry, as this is not a case of three persons withdrawing their support, but three persons who have stated on affidavit that had never appended their signatures and thumb impression in the first place on a letter supporting Harket Singh and stating that therefore much endorsement if any, is forged. 11. I feel nothing will come up in this enquiry, as this is not a case of three persons withdrawing their support, but three persons who have stated on affidavit that had never appended their signatures and thumb impression in the first place on a letter supporting Harket Singh and stating that therefore much endorsement if any, is forged. 11. The petitioner is middle pass, 45 years old with 3-1/2 times the property possessed by the respondent, and has a hereditary claim as well, who has been recommended by the Tehsildar and S.D.O. (C) and appointed by the Collector and is functioning as such since 25.11.1995 to date without any complaint and is the most suitable candidate. In view of the above discussion, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the Collector appointing Sh. Rachhpal Singh as Lambardar of village Barari. The Commissioners order dated 30.8.1998 contains a directions which I consider to be unhealthy/not necessary, and is hereby set aside and for the reasons cited in the discussion, the order of the learned Collector order dated 27.9.1995 is hereby endorsed. Announced. Order accordingly.