Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 380 (PNJ)

Jhalman v. Naranjan Dass

2004-03-29

J.S.KESAR

body2004
ORDER J.S. Kesar, FC. - The revision petition has been filed under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 15.1.2003 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar, and the order dated 6.6.2002 of the District Collector, Jalandhar. 2. The brief facts are that proceedings to fill up the post of Harijan Lambardar of village Khanpur, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar were initiated and in response to the proclamation in the village, 4 persons applied. The Naib-Tehsildar and the Tehsildar, after verification of antecedents of the candidates and on the basis of comparative merits, recommended the name of Naranjan Dass. The Collector appointed Naranjan Dass as lambardar vide his order dated 29.12.1999. On appeal by the petitioner, the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar for fresh order. The Collector, on remand, again appointed Naranjan Dass vide his order dated 6.6.2002. The appeal against this order by Jhalman Dass was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar vide impugned order dated 15.1.2003, upholding the appointment of Naranjan Dass. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. The learned counsels for the parties have been heard in detail. The counsel for the petitioner Jhalman Singh has pointed out that the order of the Collector appointing Naranjan Dass as lambardar is erroneous because, whereas the petitioner is very high on merits, Naranjan Dass has embezzled bricks meant for panchayat work. The assessment was made and it was found that out of 35000 bricks meant for public work, only about 24642 bricks were utilized. The assessment was made against him and he had deposited the cost of the bricks which were not utilized and were neither available. He has pointed out to page 36 of this file, where a receipt for Rs. 9900/- for depositing the amount of bricks by the respondent is available. Further, the counsel has pointed out that when the respondent was Sarpanch of the village, he allotted panchayat land to his brother which is a dereliction of duties. On the other hand, the petitioner has studied upto 8th class, he is only 55 years old; owns a house in the village and above all, he is an Ex-serviceman and has rendered service to the nation. All other things being almost equal, the service to the nation is required to be given preference. On the other hand, the petitioner has studied upto 8th class, he is only 55 years old; owns a house in the village and above all, he is an Ex-serviceman and has rendered service to the nation. All other things being almost equal, the service to the nation is required to be given preference. Hence, he has pleaded for acceptance of the revision petition and appointment of petitioner as lambardar of the village. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the name of respondent was duly recommended by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and his appointment was twice made by the Collector and the same has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). As far as the question of bricks is concerned, the counsel has pointed out that the bricks were purchased for civil work in the year 1995 and the assessment was made in the year 1998. The counsel argued that due to rainy season, bricks could not be utilized in time and the village people took away the bricks one by one. Since he was Sarpanch of the village, he was supposed to take care of the bricks. Therefore, he made good the loss though he was not responsible for this pilferage. This does not mean, according to the learned counsel, that the respondent has misappropriated the bricks and used for his own purpose. As far as the question of allotment of land to his brother is concerned, the counsel has pointed out that there was a decision of the Gram Panchayat, to which the petitioner is also a party that 5 Marlas of land should be given to the houseless Harijan families. His brother was found eligible under this proposal and accordingly, he was given 5 marlas land for construction of his house alongwith others. Accordingly, the respondent has done nothing out of the way to allot land unduly to his brother. The counsel has, therefore, pointed out that none of the allegation is proved. In view of the order of the Collector who has final authority for the appointment of lambardar, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant record. The counsel has, therefore, pointed out that none of the allegation is proved. In view of the order of the Collector who has final authority for the appointment of lambardar, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant record. As far as the question of mis- utilisation of bricks and the allotment of land to the brother of the respondent is concerned, this court is not convinced that respondent is at fault. He was supposed to supervise the panchayat property. However, as we know, there is hardly any control over the village people and the villagers do resort to unscrupulous means to misappropriate anything available to them. Accordingly this is natural that with the passage of time, some of the village people might have taken away the bricks for their personal use. The respondent, being overall incharge of panchayat property, was liable to make good the loss which as a duty bound Sarpanch, he did. Hence, it cannot be said that he has misappropriated the bricks himself. The allotment of land to his brother was a part of the policy approved by the Gram Panchayat as a whole. Hence, no undue favour appears to have been done by the respondent to his brother. However, as far as his appointment as lambardar is concerned, whereas both the candidates are almost similar on merits, the petitioner, being an ex-serviceman needs preferential treatment. His service to the nation cannot be ignored. I find that the order of the Collector suffers from this perversity, inasmuch as, the due weightage has not been given to the service rendered in the Army by the petitioner. On this consideration of the matter, the petitioner deserves preferential treatment. Accordingly, the revision petition is accepted and petitioner Jhalman Dass is appointed as lambardar of the village. The Collector is directed to issue Sanad Lambardari to him. The Collector be intimated accordingly. Announced. Petition allowed.