Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1602 (PNJ)

Manjit Singh v. Rajinderpal Singh

2003-11-25

R.P.S.PAWAR

body2003
ORDER R.P.S. Pawar, FC. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 11.3.2002 of Commissioner Faridkot Division, Faridkot and as well as the order dated 31.8.2000 of the District Collector, Faridkot under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. 2. The facts of the case have already been discussed in detail by the District Collector and as well as the Divisional Commissioner. There is therefore no need to reproduce them these may be read as part of this order. 3. The counsel of both the parties have filed arguments in writing. I have examined the arguments and have also perused the file minutely. 4. It transpires that the main reason for appointment of the respondent as Lambardar and for ignoring the candidature of the petitioner Shri Manjit Singh has been that he has concealed relevant information and filed an affidavit without giving the factual details. He has been found to be involved in a criminal case under section 326 IPC. He has been a defaulter of State Bank of India, Malout and as well as the Cooperative Agricultural Society of village Kutian Wali. He has not disclosed these facts in his affidavit filed before Naib Tehsildar, Lambi. On account of this concealment he has been observed to be as a man of not good character who will be unsuitable to man the important office of the Numberdar. 5. The petitioner in his arguments has referred that he owns 26 acres of the respondents. He has already served as Lamberdar of village Kutianwali and also performed his duties diligently. He has neither taken loan from State Bank of India nor he is a defaulter of the Kutianwali Cooperative Agricultural Society. He has also referred to judgment of this court in ROR No. 401 of 1985-86 where it has been held that loan taken by the agriculturist for purchase of land, tractor is not a disqualification but is a sign of his progressive nature as an agriculturist. He has also referred that earlier he was involved in a case section 326 IPC but now he has been acquitted. As he has been acquitted honourably there can be no adverse impact on his candidature. I have considered the argument of the Ld. counsel for the respondent as well. He has also referred that earlier he was involved in a case section 326 IPC but now he has been acquitted. As he has been acquitted honourably there can be no adverse impact on his candidature. I have considered the argument of the Ld. counsel for the respondent as well. He has mainly referred to the following three points against the petitioner :- i) Shri Manjit Singh was a convict under Section 326 IPC though later on he was released on probation by the appellate court. ii) He was defaulter of Cooperative Agricultural Service Society to the extent of Rs. 10,960/- on 30.6.1998 and as well as of the State Bank of India, Malout. iii) He has submitted false affidavit before the Naib Tehsildar, Lambi concealing all the above facts. 6. I have given my careful consideration to the issues discussed above. It has now been proved beyond any shadow of doubt that Shri Manjit Singh was convicted in a criminal case under section 326 IPC by the Judicial Magistrate, Gidderbaha. He was subsequently released on probation by the appellate court. His release on probation therefore, cannot be taken as honourable acquittal. He has been established as defaulter of the State Bank of India and as well as of Cooperative Agricultural Service Society. 7. It has been held that all offences under IPC cannot be construed as disqualification. It should be properly established that the facts of the case indicate that the person concerned is unfit to be entrusted with the duties of the headman. In this case he was convicted under section 326 IPC by the Judicial Magistrate although he was allowed to come out on probation by the appellate court. He has been declared as defaulter of Cooperative Agricultural Service Society for amount of Rs. 10,960/-. It is not the amount, which is involved, but his intention that this amount was outstanding against him at a particular time to the village society. He also concealed all this information while filing his affidavit of the Naib Tehsildar. All these have been taken as serious disqualifications by the District Collector while ignoring his claim for appointment as Lambardar. The same very facts have been relied upon by the Divisional Commissioner while dismissing the appeal. He also concealed all this information while filing his affidavit of the Naib Tehsildar. All these have been taken as serious disqualifications by the District Collector while ignoring his claim for appointment as Lambardar. The same very facts have been relied upon by the Divisional Commissioner while dismissing the appeal. In this court also, the petitioner has not been able to rebut the grounds, which have been cited by the District Collector and Divisional Commissioner for ignoring his claim. In view of above discussion, I am unable to find any fresh point, which may call for my interference with the impugned orders. Accordingly the same are upheld and the revision petition is dismissed. To be communicated. Petition dismissed.