Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 792 (PNJ)

Puran Singh v. Piara Singh

2002-08-12

B.C.GUPTA

body2002
ORDER Dr. B.C. Gupta, F.C. - This is an appeal under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 28.1.1998 pass by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar in a lambardari case. 2. On the death of Sunder Singh, incumbent lambardar of village Maqsudpur, Tehsil Bholath, District Kapurthala, applications were invited for the post of lambardar. In response to proclamation for inviting applications, seven persons applied. The case was submitted to the District Collector, Kapurthala by the Sub-divisional Officer (Civil), with his report. Before the Collector, only four persons namely Puran Singh, Balbir Singh, Shangara Singh and Piara Singh appeared and put forth their claims. The District Collector observed in his order dated 30.8.95 that Shangara Singh who is an ex-Sarpanch, is illiterate. Moreover, he is 70 years old. The remaining three candidates are all ex-serviceman and own sufficient land. Puran Singh has better claim, being son of deceased lambardar. No other candidate had any special qualification to counter his hereditary claim. He appointed Puran Singh as lambardar. Against this order, Piara Singh and Shangara Singh filed two separate appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar who accepted the appeal of Piara Singh, as Puran Singh could not rebut allegation made against him that he was defaulter in payment of loan of society/Bank and had mortgaged his land with the Bank and with three other persons. Against this order, the appellant filed revision/appeal before the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation. The Financial Commissioner, Cooperation vide his order dated 19.7.1999 upheld the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed review/application which was also rejected vide order dated 30.8.1999. Puran Singh then challenged the matter before the High Court and the learned High Court remanded the case to the Financial Commissioner with a direction to decide the case afresh. The case has, therefore, been heard accordingly. 3. A notice was issued to the respondent for putting in appearance on 27.8.2001. Shri G.S. Nagra, Advocate, counsel for the respondent appeared in response. Since the case was complete, the same was fixed for arguments. 4. At the time of arguments before me, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that previously, the father of Puran Singh was lambardar of the village and he died on 30.10.1993. Shri G.S. Nagra, Advocate, counsel for the respondent appeared in response. Since the case was complete, the same was fixed for arguments. 4. At the time of arguments before me, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that previously, the father of Puran Singh was lambardar of the village and he died on 30.10.1993. The District Collector vide his order dated 30.8.1995 appointed Puran Singh as lambardar of the village against the vacancy caused by his father. The appeal against this order was however accepted by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar on the ground of default in payment of Bank loan and mortgage or certain land with the Bank. According to the learned counsel, the said dis-qualifications were no longer there. Even on merits, Puran Singh was a better candidate than the other person. He is a Jat Sikh whereas other candidate Piara Singh belongs to Lobana community. The present post of lambardar belongs to Jat Patti whereas there are three other posts which are for Lobana community. The other candidate Piara Singh is also not appropriately educated and no proof had been put forward for his education. In so far as conviction of Puran Singh in a criminal case is concerned, the same has been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala vide his order dated 18.11.1999. The appellant has the hereditary claim and has passed middle class. He had also been given war Jagir. The learned counsel argued that the choice of the Collector should not be interfered in the matter of appointment of lambardar. He invited my attention to the view taken in various other authorities, for example in 1994 PLJ 794, 1994 PLJ 679 etc., in this regard. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent stated that Piara Singh was a better candidate than Puran Singh. He had 9 acres of land as compared to just 19 kanals of Puran Singh. He was an ex-serviceman, member of the panchayat and studied up to primary level. Being son of the deceased lambardar, was not of much value because other considerations had also to be seen while appointing a lambardar. The learned counsel invited my attention to the ruling given in this regard, by the Division Bench of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1973 PLJ 676. Being son of the deceased lambardar, was not of much value because other considerations had also to be seen while appointing a lambardar. The learned counsel invited my attention to the ruling given in this regard, by the Division Bench of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1973 PLJ 676. Further, Puran Singh had been sentenced by the Court of Additional Judge, Kapurthala on 24.2.1998 to rigorous imprisonment of six months and also fined Rs. 400/-. The acquittal of Puran Singh by the Sessions Judge on 18.11.1999 is a result of the compromise and not on the merits of the case. Further, certain land of Puran Singh had already been attached in execution case. The entries in Jamabandi for the year 1997-98 prove beyond doubt that the land of Puran Singh had been attached. He was, therefore, not a fit candidate for appointment as lambardar. 6. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. This case was earlier heard by the then Financial Commissioner when the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) on 28.1.1998 was challenged before him in appeal. As per the order passed by learned Financial Commissioner Cooperation, Puran Singh absented himself from the court proceedings and hence, the case was decided against him and the order of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld on 19.7.1999. An application filed by Puran Singh to review the order dated 19.7.1999 was also dismissed. Puran Singh then challenged the matter before the High Court and the learned High Court remanded the case to the Financial Commissioner with a direction to decide the case afresh. The case has, therefore, been heard accordingly. 7. A persual of merits of the case indicates that Puran Singh had been convicted in a criminal case by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala. The contention of the respondent that the conviction had been set aside by the Sessions Judge, based on a compromise, has not been rebutted by the petitioner. The entries in the revenue record show that certain land belonging to Puran Singh had been attached in execution proceedings. It is true that Puran Singh had hereditary claim to the post but hereditary factor is not the only factor to be taken into consideration while appointing lambardar. The entries in the revenue record show that certain land belonging to Puran Singh had been attached in execution proceedings. It is true that Puran Singh had hereditary claim to the post but hereditary factor is not the only factor to be taken into consideration while appointing lambardar. On comparative merits, it is borne out that Piara Singh is a better candidate than Puran Singh and he has been rightly appointed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division as lambardar. I, therefore, find no justification to interfere in the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division and the same is upheld. The appeal is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed. Announced. Appeal dismissed.