Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1127 (PNJ)

Shiv Singh v. Kulbir Singh

2004-10-04

A.K.DUBEY

body2004
ORDER A.K. Dubey, F.C. - This revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 has been filed against the order dated 17.9.2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and setting aside order dated 25.3.2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Nawanshahr and to appoint the petitioner-Shiv Singh as Nambardar of village Kamam, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on the death of the then Nambardar Ganga Singh, S/Sh. Shiv Singh son of Dinesh Singh and Kulbir Singh s/o Sohan Singh had applied for the post of Nambardar. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate- cum-Assistant Collector Grade-I, Nawanshahr duly recommended Shiv Singh for appointment. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Nawanshahr heard both the candidates and recorded that Shiv Singh is 70 years old, has 4 acres land in village Sodhian and 6 acres land in village Kamam, that he has been Sarbra Nambardar for 30 years and knows the work of Nambardari well. On the other hand, Kulbir Singh is a permanent resident of village Kamam. He is 50 years old and educated upto 8th Standard. He reads and writes Punjabi well and possesses 6-1/2 acres land. After due consideration the Collector came to the conclusion that Kulbir Singh was a better candidate in terms of age, education and, above all, Shiv Singh is a resident of village Sodhian and has a residence in village Sodhian. Therefore, he appointed Kulbir Singh as Nambardar. 3. When the matter came up for appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Shiv Singh appellant raised the issue that the brother of respondent Kulbir Singh is also a Nambardar of the same village since 1997 and that Nambardari should not be confined to the members of the same family as cited in 1978 PLJ 237. 3. When the matter came up for appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Shiv Singh appellant raised the issue that the brother of respondent Kulbir Singh is also a Nambardar of the same village since 1997 and that Nambardari should not be confined to the members of the same family as cited in 1978 PLJ 237. This issue was countered by the respondent that there is no rule for not appointing two Nambardars out of a family particularly the following portion of the above-mentioned citation reads as under :- ".........there is no specific bar to appointing two persons of the same family as Nambardars in the same village and the selection.........did not suffer from any legal infirmity." Kulbir Singh, respondent again reiterated before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar that the appellant does not reside in village Kamam and is a resident of village Sodhian, which fact is proved from ration card application at page 47, ration card at page 101, voters list at pages 149 to 151 having vote at Sr. No. 664, jamabandi at page 124 column 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) again considered the relative merits and concluded that the findings of the Collector in favour of the respondent are correct and neither perverse nor contrary to the rules. 4. During arguments, the counsel for the petitioner contended that Kulbir Singh was not a fit person to be appointed as Nambardar because earlier also he was appointed as Nambardar, but due to his unfitness left the Nambardari. This was countered by the respondent that this point had not been raised earlier and moreover no blemish is attracted to Kulbir Singh even if he had left Nambardari due to some personal reasons. It was also stated that the petitioner cannot be left out on account of his age of 70 years because he is a fit person. In this context both the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner (A) were perused. It has nowhere been argued that Kulbir Singh is a better candidate on account of education and age alone. Age is one factor along with rest while making recommendations and conclusions regarding his suitability for appointment as Nambardar. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that Shiv Singh is a resident of village Kamam and in support thereof he produced a ration card of village Kamam and voter list of the village Kamam. Age is one factor along with rest while making recommendations and conclusions regarding his suitability for appointment as Nambardar. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that Shiv Singh is a resident of village Kamam and in support thereof he produced a ration card of village Kamam and voter list of the village Kamam. In this context, Annexure P-4 and P-5 were produced. The voter list is for the year 2003 and the ration card has been issued on 27.5.2003. The order of the Collector was passed on 25.3.2003. Keeping in view the specific documents referred by the Commissioner in his order dated 17.9.2003, it is evident that the voter list and ration card produced in the present revision petition are not very helpful to the petitioner. In fact Ld. Counsel for the respondent had reiterated that both these documents are of a later date and obtained subsequently. 5. After due consideration of the record, the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner (A), I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the aforementioned orders, which require interference at this stage. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Revision dismissed.