Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 672 (PNJ)

Prem Singh v. Surjit Singh

2000-07-06

I.S.BINDRA

body2000
ORDER I.S. Bindra, F.C. - This revision petition has been filed under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887 against the order dated 16.4.1999 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and also against the order dated 22.8.97 passed by the District Collector, Hoshiarpur. 2. Brief facts of this case are that Sh. Baisakhi Ram Lambardar of village Jalala died on 21.11.94. To fill up this vacant post Naib Tehsildar Mukerian got proclamation made in the village inviting applications from the eligible persons. In response to this seven persons namely 1. Bihari Lal 2. Sat Pal 3. Babu Ram 4. Surjit Singh 5. Dalip Singh 6. Prem Singh 7. Harbans Lal applied for the post. After recording their statements and verifying their antecedents Naib Tehsildar Mukerian vide his report dated 27.11.95 recommended the name of Surjit Singh s/o Baisakhi Ram for appointment of Lambardar. The Tehsildar Mukerian agreeing with the report of Naib Tehsildar Mukerian forwarded the case the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Assistant Collector Ist Grade Mukerian vide his report dated 4.1.96. The Sub Divisional Magistrate Mukerian also agreed with the report of Tehsildar Mukerian and recommended the name of Surjit Singh candidate for the post vide his report dated 12.6.1997. 3. After considering the arguments of candidates and their counsel, the Ld. Collector appointed Sh. Surjit Singh, the respondent No. 1 as lambardar of village Jalala, Tehsil Mukerian Dist. Hoshiarpur against this vacant post caused due to the death of Baisakhi Ram lambardar vide his order dated 22.8.97. The present petitioner vent in appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar who examined the case thoroughly and dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 16.4.1999. 4. The grounds of the revision petition are almost the same which have been submitted in the court of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. However, the merits and demerits of the contesting candidates are as under :- Prem Singh : Age Land Qualification Remarks 60 years 49K 17M Matriculate Also worked as Patwari. He has not been dismissed but resigned from the service. He also purchased the land of Irrigation Deptt. Surjit Singh 52 years 34 Kanal 9th Son of deceased lambardar. He was a member Panchayat from 1982 to 1992. He is agriculturist by profession. Permanent resident of the village. 5. I have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the record. He also purchased the land of Irrigation Deptt. Surjit Singh 52 years 34 Kanal 9th Son of deceased lambardar. He was a member Panchayat from 1982 to 1992. He is agriculturist by profession. Permanent resident of the village. 5. I have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the record. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is 60 years old, Matriculate, also worked as Patwari, owns 49 Kanals 17 Marla of land. Presently working as Agriculturist. He further mentioned that petitioner has not been dismissed but resigned from the service. He further mentioned that he has been levelled (levied ?) penalty for the theft of canal water. He also purchased the land of Irrigation Department by concealing the facts. 6. On the other hand the counsel for the respondent argued that the respondent is also son of deceased lambardar Baisakhi Ram. His age is 52 years. He is 9th pass; owns 34K of land in the village, President of Pry. Agriculture Coop. Society. He was a member Panchayat from 1982 to 1992. He is agriculturist by profession; permanent resident of the village. 7. On the basis of his preferencial qualifications, he prayed that he deserved to be appointed lambardar of the village. His name was recommended by the Naib Tehsildar/Tehsildar/S.D.M. and the Collector has appointed him as lambardar. The appeal against the order of Collector has also been dismissed by the Commissioner (A), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. At the end he prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed. 8. I have heard the arguments of counsel for both the parties and perused the record. In this case the Collector who is appointing authority has appointed the present respondent Sh. Surjit Singh as lambardar of the village Jalala on the recommendations of Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar and the report of S.D.M. Mukerian. The present petitioner also filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar who after examining the record and considering the arguments of counsel for both the parties, dismissed the appeal. Since the present respondent has been appointed by the Collector who is the appointing authority and the appeal of the petitioner has also been dismissed because there is no illegality or perversity in the order of Ld. Collector. The arguments put forth by the petitioner are the same which were submitted before the lower courts. Since the present respondent has been appointed by the Collector who is the appointing authority and the appeal of the petitioner has also been dismissed because there is no illegality or perversity in the order of Ld. Collector. The arguments put forth by the petitioner are the same which were submitted before the lower courts. I also find no force in the arguments of the petitioner and dismiss the revision petition being devoid of merits. Announced. Revision dismissed.