Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 480 (PNJ)

Kulbhushan Singh v. Gurmit Singh

2001-04-30

K.S.JANJUA

body2001
ORDER K.S. Janjua, FC. - Consequent upon the death of Bakhshi Ram, Lambardar of village Karnana, Tehsil and Distt. Nawanshahar proceedings were initiated to full up this vacancy. In response to proclamation made in the village two applications i.e. of petitioner and respondent were received. Respondent appeared with counsel before Tehsildar but inspite of being given many chances did not record his statement etc. Petitioner was recommended to SDO(C) by him, who also endorsed the same, District Collector, Nawanshahar, however, remanded the case back to SDM, Nawanshahar for providing opportunity of being heard to the respondent. After reconsidering the matter, Tehsildar again made recommendation in favour of the petitioner, whereas SDO(C) supported the respondent, Kulbhushan Singh and Gurmit Singh pursued their claim before District Collector, Nawanshahar who found Gurmit Singh more suitable and appointed him Lambardar of village Karnana (29.1.1999). Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed appeal before Commissioner, Jalandhar mainly on the ground that he has experience of the post of Lambardar being Sarbrah of deceased Lambardar (Bakhshi Ram). Commissioner, however, dismissed the appeal holding that Sarbrah Lambardari is not given on merits. Hence the instant revision. 2. Comparative Statement of qualifications of petitioner and respondent is as follows :- Kulbhushan Singh (Petitioner) Gurmit Singh (Respondent) Age 45 years 45 years Education Under Graduate B.A.-II Land 88 Kanals 15 Marlas 40 Kanals Experience 11 years (Sarbrah) Nil 3. Sh. K.S. Cheema, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the petitioner and argued that age and educational qualification of both the candidates are almost same but land holding of petitioner is more than double than that of the respondent. However, the petitioner was appointed Sarbrah of his uncle and performed the duties of Lambardar diligently and to the satisfaction of authorities from 1987 to 1997 when Sh. Bakhshi Ram, the incumbent expired (4.3.1997). He submitted further that information of death of Bakshi Ram was duly given to the authorities by the petitioner. He urged that weightage should have been given to the petitioner due to his experience of the post. In support of his plea he referred to 1980-PLJ-120 according to which "Punjab Land Revenue Rules - Rule 15 - Lambardar appointment of - Person who has been acting as Sarbrah Lambardar. Entitled to preference. He prayed acceptance of revision petition and appointment of petitioner as Lambardar. 4. Above arguments of petitioners counsel were controverted by Sh. In support of his plea he referred to 1980-PLJ-120 according to which "Punjab Land Revenue Rules - Rule 15 - Lambardar appointment of - Person who has been acting as Sarbrah Lambardar. Entitled to preference. He prayed acceptance of revision petition and appointment of petitioner as Lambardar. 4. Above arguments of petitioners counsel were controverted by Sh. M.S. Bedi, Advocate who contended that no preference be given to petitioner on the basis of Sarbrahi. He argued that respondent has been rightly appointed Lambardar by District Collector considering his more meritorious. Refuting the plea of petitioners counsel regarding experience he cited 1987-PLJ-521 vide which "Land Revenue Rules - Rule 17 - Working as Sarbrah - Quality of performance - Relevant consideration - Arrears in collection of land revenue in village - Existence of Sarbrah of little assistance to Government if its land revenue is not collected." 5. In my considered view no benefit can be given to respondent of this ruling cited as it is relevant in case Sarbrah is defaulter in collection of land revenue. In this case no default has been shown on the part of petitioner which debars him of the benefit of experience. Moreover 1987-PLJ-521 cited by the counsel for the respondent itself holds that Sarbrah Lambarder should be given preference in matter of selection of Lambardar. The petitioner definitely has an edge upon the respondent on the basis of experience of the post other merits being almost equal. What is intriguing here is the remand of case by Collector in the first instance. Respondent appeared before Tehsildar but did not record his statement inspite of extended opportunities. This would show his scant regard for Revenue Officers which cannot be ignored. He did not show any interest in pursuing his case. Had he been interested, he would have followed up his case before SDM. This also he did not do. 6. A suitable candidate was available to the Collector in Kulbhushan Singh. There was no justification for remanding the case. The Collector was at fault here. What was his interest in getting a candidate who was unwilling to pursue his case and who was showing scant regard for Tehsildar ? Collector was not justified in remanding the case at all when suitable candidate was available. Injustice was done to petitioner when the Collector remanded the case in order to help an unwilling candidate. What was his interest in getting a candidate who was unwilling to pursue his case and who was showing scant regard for Tehsildar ? Collector was not justified in remanding the case at all when suitable candidate was available. Injustice was done to petitioner when the Collector remanded the case in order to help an unwilling candidate. Such motivated conduct on the part of District Collector is not lawful. I have no hesitation to accept the revision petition. Kulbhushan Singh is appointed as Lambardar of village Karnana Tehsil and Distt. Nawanshahar. Announced. Revision allowed.