Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 968 (PNJ)

Baljit Singh v. Hardial Singh

2000-08-21

K.S.JANJUA

body2000
ORDER K.S. Janjua, FC. - This is an appeal filed under Section 13 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1987 against the order of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar (14.12.1999). 2. On the death of Arjan Singh, Lambardar of village Litran, proceedings were initiated to fill up this vacancy. As a result of proclamation made in the village three candidates namely Baljit Singh, Baldev Singh and Daljit Singh applied. Baldev Singh and Daljit Singh remained absent before Tehsildar so they were proceeded against ex-parte leaving Baljit Singh in the fray. His name was recommended by Tehsildar/SDM Nakodar to District Collector, Jalandhar who finding nothing against this candidate appointed him as Lambardar of village Litran (27.1.1999). 3. Against this order appeal was filed by Hardial Singh-Respondent No. 1 before Commissioner, Jalandhar on the main grounds the proper proclamation was not made in the village and the petitioner was involved in so many criminal cases. Commissioner after hearing the parties acceded the appeal and ordered that fresh proclamation be made. Hence this appeal. 4. Sh. G.S. Nagra, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner argued that Commissioner has wrongly accepted the appeal filed by the Respondent No. 1 who was neither a candidate before the Collector nor had locus standi to file time barred appeal - 1999(I) PLJ page 525. Due to party faction in village, the petitioner was involved in a false criminal case in which he has been acquitted by the Court. The counsel contended that proclamation was made in the village and the Patwari entered Rapat No. 471 dated 22.7.1998 in the Rapat Roznamcha. The counsel urged that when Lambardari Sanad and Identity Card have already been issued to the petitioner on 23.2.1999, impugned order of 14.12.1999 should be set aside and order of the Collector be restored. 5. Refuting the above arguments Sh. Sarabjit Singh, Advocate, counsel for the respondent pleaded that no munadi was done in the village and proceedings of munadi were wrongly prepared by securing the signatures of interested persons with the connivance of the lower officers. The person who in having the criminal record should not be appointed as Lambardar. Moreover, Panchayat has passed a resolution for seeking the intervention of the Court to set aside the order of the Collector and seeking the fresh applications for the post of Lambardar. 6. The person who in having the criminal record should not be appointed as Lambardar. Moreover, Panchayat has passed a resolution for seeking the intervention of the Court to set aside the order of the Collector and seeking the fresh applications for the post of Lambardar. 6. I have considered the arguments propounded by the counsel for both parties and have also gone through the record. I am inclined to agree with the counsel for the petitioner and also rely upon the citation 1999 (Vol. I) PLJ 525. Hardial Singh, Respondent No. 1 could not have filed an appeal before the Commissioner because he never applied for the post of Lambardar. How is he an interested party ? It has been proved from the entry Rapat No. 471 dated 27.7.1998 in the Rapat Roznamcha that due proclamation was made in the village. After the selection of Lambardar the resolution passed by the Panchayat is meaningless. The petitioner was the only candidate who appeared before the Collector and who was found suitable for the post. The Commissioner has recorded that the Panchayat of the village met him on 26.5.1999 and complained to him. Commissioner cannot take notice of such complaints. If there was a complaint he should have ordered an enquiry and punished the delinquent officials. If, in enquiry, it was proved that proclamation was not made, this could have been taken as a basis for nullifying proceedings before Collector. I find it extremely strange that Commissioner believed a verbal complaint, took judicial notice of it and countermanded the order of District Collector. Such orders smack of a casual approach in Court cases. This should be discouraged. There is no illegality or perversity in the order of Collector which his upheld. The appeal is accepted. Announced. Appeal allowed.