Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 511 (PNJ)

Balkar Singh v. Charan Singh

2003-04-07

B.C.GUPTA

body2003
ORDER B.C. Gupta, FC. - This is an appeal under section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 25.9.2001, passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar in a labmardari case. 2. After preliminary hearing, the case was admitted, notice was issued to the respondent and the record of the lower courts was also summoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on the death of Darshan Singh, lambardar of village Talwandi Sanghera, tehsil Shahkot, district Jalandhar, proceedings to fill up this post were initiated. Proclamation was got done in the village inviting applications from the desious persons. 5 candidates applied for the same. The Tehsildar and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shahkot recommended the name of Balkar Singh. Only 2 candidates, namely Charan Singh and Balkar Singh appeared before the Collector. The Collector came to the conclusion that Balkar Singh was the most suitable candidate, being younger in age and having landed property. Accordingly, the Collector appointed Balkar Singh as lambardar. 4. Charan Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. The Commissioner felt that Charan Singh was matriculate and an ex-serviceman, retired as Subedar Major, whereas Balkar Singh was only 7th Class pass. The land revenue had been abolished and the land holding was not a critical factor for deciding the case of lambardari. He, accordingly, accepted the appeal and appointed Charan Singh as lambardar. Hence, the present revision petition. 5. At the time of arguments before me, Shri R.S. Chauhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the reports made by the Tehsildar and the Sub- divisional Magistrate were in favour of the petitioner and the District Collector, vide his order dated 2.3.2001, had appointed Balkar Singh as lambardar of the village. The Commissioner was not justified in setting aside the order passed by the District Collector. The order passed by the Commissioner is non-speaking, sketchy and does not reflect a correct appreciation of the facts. The respondent Charan Singh had one acre land, whereas Balkar Singh had 3 acres of land holding in the same patti to which the lambardari belonged. Balkar Singh was younger in age than Charan Singh and hence, better suited to be lambardar of the village. The respondent Charan Singh had one acre land, whereas Balkar Singh had 3 acres of land holding in the same patti to which the lambardari belonged. Balkar Singh was younger in age than Charan Singh and hence, better suited to be lambardar of the village. The learned counsel invited my attention to a number of rulings namely; 1959 PLJ 4, 1961 PLJ 25, 1971 Revenue Law Reporter 437, 1980 Lahore Law Times 116, showing that the choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of lambardar could not be disturbed. He further stated that a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court had decided in 2000(2) PLJ 469, that once, selection to the post of lambardar had been made by the Collector, the higher authority could interfere only when the view taken by the lower court was perverse or contrary to law. The Punjab & Haryana High Court also held in 2001(1) PLJ 254 that the powers to select and appoint a village lambardar vest primarily with the Collector. The same High Court observed in 2002(2) RCR(Civil) 520 that the appointment of lambardar by the District Collector on the recommendations of lower officers, could not be interfered by the Commissioner. The learned counsel further stated that the respondent is a member of village panchayat and also a member of the Zila Sainik Board. Although, these factors are not a legal bar towards appointment as lambardar, but the post of lambardar should not be given to the respondent as he is already holding other assignments. The learned counsel also stated that even though, the land revenue had been abolished, the extent of land holding is of great consequence. 6. Shri P.N. Aggarwal, Advocate, appearing an behalf of the respondent, stated that the petitioner Balkar Singh is the owner of only 14K-10M of land and not 3 acres of land as recorded in the order passed by the lower revenue officers. On the other hand, Charan Singh had 1 acre of land and also a plot measuring 14 marla. The learned counsel then narrated the qualifications of the respondent, saying that he was an ex-serviceman who was better suited for the post of lambardar. On the other hand, Charan Singh had 1 acre of land and also a plot measuring 14 marla. The learned counsel then narrated the qualifications of the respondent, saying that he was an ex-serviceman who was better suited for the post of lambardar. He pointed out my attention to the documents produced by them as well as available on the file of the Collector, saying the Charan Singh had won 7 gallantry awards and had a certificate from the School of Artillery for Long Gunnery Staff Course. He also had the graduation certificate from the Army showing that he was eligible for those posts where the qualification was graduation. There were many other certificates in his favour from the army authorities and he had also been given the rank of honorary Junior Commissioned Officer. The learned counsel further stated that the report of the Tehsildar did not mention that Charan Singh was disqualified to be lambardar of the village. Further, Charan Singh was only 53 years of age and being an ex-serviceman, was quite fit to perform the duties of lambardar. Moreover, there were a number of rulings, stating that the reports made by the lower revenue officers were not binding on the Collector. There were also a number of rulings which stated that an ex-serviceman should be preferred for the post of lambardar. Regarding the choice made by the Collector, the learned counsel stated that the choice of the Collector could be set aside, if it was not in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, being a member of the gram panchayat and a member of the Zila Sainik Board, was a strong positive qualification in favour of the respondent. The respondent was always available in the village to perform the duties of the lambardar. 7. The authorities quoted by the counsel for the respondent included 1990 PLJ 276, 1987 PLJ 652 and 2002(1) PLJ 102 saying that the recommendations made by Naib-tehsildar/Tehsildar and Sub-divisional Magistrate are not binding upon the Collector for the appointment of lambardar. The respondent was always available in the village to perform the duties of the lambardar. 7. The authorities quoted by the counsel for the respondent included 1990 PLJ 276, 1987 PLJ 652 and 2002(1) PLJ 102 saying that the recommendations made by Naib-tehsildar/Tehsildar and Sub-divisional Magistrate are not binding upon the Collector for the appointment of lambardar. There is another authority 1998(2) PLJ 428 in Rajinder Singh v. Manjit Singh decided by the Financial Commissioner Punjab in which, it is stated that ex-army man should be preferred for appointment of lambardar and the ownership of land is not a major factor after the abolition of land revenue and that the choice made by the Collector and Commissioner could be set aside in a revision petition by Financial Commissioner, if such choice was not based on sound reasons and hence, perverse. There are other authorities like 1960 PLJ 39, 1961 PLJ 25 and 1992(2) RRR 143, saying the ex-serviceman should be preferred in appointment of lambardar. The learned counsel has also produced 1983 PLJ 78, 1984 PLJ 458, 1986 PLJ 451, 1987PLJ 521, 1987 PLJ 642 and 1994 PLJ 656, showing that the Collectors choice can be upset if this disregards the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. It is established on record that Charan Singh has 7 K-12 M of land, whereas the petitioner Balkar Singh has 14 K-10M of land and not 3 acres of land. It is also established that Charan Singh is 53 years of age and Balkar Singh is 34 years of age, Charan Singh has a very distinct edge over Balkar Singh as he is an ex- serviceman and recipient of 7 gallantry awards and holds a number of certificates issued by the army authorities which lead to establish that he is in a much better position to perform the duties of lambardar than the other candidate. There are a number of rulings on the subject as indicated by the respondent, which say that an ex-serviceman should be preferred for the appointment of lambardar. There are a number of rulings on the subject as indicated by the respondent, which say that an ex-serviceman should be preferred for the appointment of lambardar. Moreover, it is true that it has been held by various courts that Collectors choice for appointment of lambardar should not be disturbed, but it is a well-recognised principle in the eyes of law that when there is a provision for filing an appeal, the higher authorities are not legally debarred from interfering in the order passed by the Collector. I tend to agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that the choice of the Collector can be set aside, if it disregards the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also true that revision jurisdiction should be exercised only, if there is a material irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the lower court or if there is a patent error of jurisdiction. In this case, the Commissioner accepted the appeal filed by the respondent and appointed him as lambardar, based on the comparative merits and de-merits of two candidates. I do not find any justification nor I find any material irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Commissioner which may merit any interference at the revisional stage. The revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed. Announced. Petition dismissed.