Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 57 (PNJ)

Ajit Singh v. Nirprit Singh

2002-01-09

KARL REDDY

body2002
ORDER Karl Reddy, F.C. - This is a petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 seeking to revise the order dated 28.10.1997 of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, and the order dated 24.3.1995 of the District Collector, Ferozepur. 2. The District Collector, Ferozepur, vide order dated 19.4.1991 had directed the Tehsildar, Jalalabad (West) to invite applications afresh from candidates for appointment as Lambardar of Village Chak Bazida (Patti Hamid Khan), after effecting proclamation in the village. Proclamation was made on 5.7.1991 as per Rapat Roznamcha Waquiati No. 1130. Candidates were required to file their applications within 15 days i.e. up to 20.7.1991. Ajit Singh, present petitioner, and Resham Singh and Ram Singh, respondents No. 3 and 4 respectively, filed their applications within time. Nirprit Singh and Sulakhan Singh, present respondents No. 1 and 2, filed then applications six days beyond the appointed date. The District Collector, Ferozepur vide order dated 24.3.1995 directed that applications be invited afresh, after effecting proclamation in the village. This has been challenged by Ajit Singh on the ground that inviting applications afresh was solely with a view to favour the candidates who had not applied in time, under political pressure. 3. The Lamabardari has been vacant even prior to 1991. There seems no reason to restrict the choice of the District Collector to the candidates who applied 10 years ago. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of the Additional Commissioner which held that a criminal case under Sections 326/324/323/34 IPC had been registered against the appellant, and hence he could not have been appointed as Lambardar. The appellant has since been acquitted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur vide order dated 22.7.1995. Even otherwise, 2001(1) PLJ 254 is a case where the Collector had appointed the candidate notwithstanding that a criminal case was pending against him, and the appointment was upheld on the ground that a candidate cannot be considered unsuitable merely on the ground that a criminal case has been registered. Registration of a case has no effect until a finding of guilt has been recorded. In the present case no appointment has been made, and there is not even a mention in the impugned order of the Collector that any candidate has been found unfit on the ground that a criminal case has been registered against him. 5. Registration of a case has no effect until a finding of guilt has been recorded. In the present case no appointment has been made, and there is not even a mention in the impugned order of the Collector that any candidate has been found unfit on the ground that a criminal case has been registered against him. 5. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. In view of the fears expressed by the petitioner, the last date for inviting applications should be not earlier than the 3rd week of February. Announced. Petition dismissed.