Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 229 (PNJ)

Manmohan Singh v. Yog Raj

2005-02-08

A.K.DUBEY

body2005
ORDER A.K. Dubey, F.C. - This is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 19.12.2002, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, vide which he has accepted the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 against the order of the District Collector, Jalandhar, dated 14.5.2001. 2. The brief facts are, that Yog Raj (respondent) was working as Lambardar of village Dalli, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. The petitioner made complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar that the respondent has wrongly attested Mutation No. 2176 of village Dalli. The District Collector found the respondent guilty and accordingly dismissed him from the post of Lambardar, vide order dated 14.5.2001. 3. The respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. The Commissioner was of the considered view that the District Collector has given undue weight to the complaint of the petitioner and has passed very harsh order dismissing the respondent from the post of Lambardar and that too without affording him an opportunity of personal hearing. The Commissioner accordingly, accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the District Collector vide his order dated 12.12.2002. Thus, the Commissioner reinstated Yog Raj as Lambardar of village Dalli and rejected the application of Manmohan Singh who had got himself impleaded as respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. 4. Both the parties were heard through their counsels. On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that Yog Raj had verified the pedigree table of mutation No. 2176 of village Dalli regarding inheritance of Jarnail Singh, but willfully did not disclose about all the legal heirs of the deceased since he did not perform his duties properly, therefore, District Collector, Jalandhar had removed him from the post of Lambardar under Rule 16(ii)(f). It was further stated that one Jarnail Singh died on 11.4.1987 and the deceased left behind one son namely Pawandeep Singh and two daughters Gurdeep Kaur and Rajwant Rani. The daughters were minor and mutation of inheritance was sanctioned only in favour of Pawandeep Singh on 27.1.1989. Yog Raj, Lambardar had attested the pedigree table and put his signatures in English on the mutation sheet. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Commissioner has mentioned in the impugned order about the affidavit of Gurdeep Kaur and Rajwant Rani daughters of the deceased. Yog Raj, Lambardar had attested the pedigree table and put his signatures in English on the mutation sheet. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Commissioner has mentioned in the impugned order about the affidavit of Gurdeep Kaur and Rajwant Rani daughters of the deceased. However, the aforesaid affidavit is dated 22.6.1998 whereas the mutation was sanctioned on 27.1.1989. Therefore, no weightage can be given to the aforesaid affidavit. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also referred to the Collectors file where the District Collector, Jalandhar had issued a show- cause notice vide letter No. 150/Reader dated 15.2.2001 to Yog Raj, Lambardar seeking his reply on the attesting in the pedigree table that Pawandeep Singh is the lone heir of Jarnail Singh whereas there is no mention whether his wife is living or deceased and Gurdeep Kaur and Rajwant Rani both daughters of the deceased have not been shown in the pedigree table and thus Yog Raj, Lambardar has ignored the rights of the two daughters and has defaulted in the performance of the duties in assisting Pawandeep Singh to get the property mutated in his name. Keeping in view this show-cause notice, the learned counsel for the petitioner questioned the conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) that no opportunity of being heard was given to Yog Raj. 6. He also referred to the detailed report of Naib Tehsildar stating that Yog Raj had left out the names of wife and two daughters of Jarnail Singh. Further, the fact that Yog Raj was given opportunity is borne out by the reply given by Yog Raj on 2.3.2001. Yog Raj had stated in the aforementioned reply that Pawandeep Singh, the only son of deceased Jarnail Singh was handicapped, that the daughters were under the supervision and guardianship of their mother as natural guardian who had deposed at the time of mutation that they are ready to relinquish their right in the property left by the deceased Jarnail Singh and hence the mutation was sanctioned in favour of Pawandeep Singh. He also referred to the affidavit dated 22.6.1998 given by the daughters. Yog Raj had also referred to his enmity with Manmohan Singh and further stated that he was appointed as Lambardar on 3.12.1987 and was not thus fully aware of the technicalities of the law. He also referred to the affidavit dated 22.6.1998 given by the daughters. Yog Raj had also referred to his enmity with Manmohan Singh and further stated that he was appointed as Lambardar on 3.12.1987 and was not thus fully aware of the technicalities of the law. The affidavit dated 22.6.1998 shows the age of Ranjit Kaur and Mandip Kaur as 20 and 19 years respectively. They have stated that the entire property of their father has been mutated in the name of their brother Pawandeep Singh and that the entire land should be allowed to remain in the name of their brother only; that they shall not demand their share in the property of the deceased at any stage. Therefore, it is evident that the affidavit has been given subsequent to the mutation. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the order of the Collector dated 14.5.2001 wherein he has dismissed Yog Raj as Lambardar after due consideration of the reply to the show-cause notice. Rule 16(ii)(f) reads as under :- "16. Dismissal of headmen :- (ii)(f). he neglects to discharge his duties or is otherwise shown to be incompetent." Further, the learned counsel referred to Suraj Bhan v. Rati Ram and another, 1992 PLJ 700, wherein the Financial Commissioner, Haryana has held, "(a) Land Revenue Rules, Rule 16(ii)(f) - Wrong identification by Lambardar - Should be viewed seriously - Lenient view cannot be taken - Lambardars if behave in such irresponsible manner, entire revenue system will crack up - No question of wrong identification having been done in good faith - Wrong identification invites penalty of dismissal of Lambardar." He also referred to 1932 LLT (XI) 29 titled as Nazar Hussain v. Khan Mohammad, wherein it was held, "Verification of a statement without taking steps to assure its correctness which results in loss to the Government is an offence which would justify the dismissal of a Lambardar." 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the Commissioner has rightly passed the order. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the Commissioner has rightly passed the order. It was stated that the mutation pertaining to inheritance of the deceased Jarnail Singh was got entered at the instance of Dilbag Singh real brother of Jarnail Singh by the Patwari halqua as Dilbag Singh had stated that the deceased had left behind his widow and a son namely Pawandeep Singh and that the widow of the deceased Jarnail Singh has re-married the said Dilbag Singh. The Patwari worked out the pedigree table on the mutation sheet accordingly which was attested by the appellant bona fidely in good faith. He referred to the contention before the Commissioner that no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to respondent Manmohan Singh or the said two daughters as they had given the given the affidavit to the effect that they agreed to transfer the property left by Jarnail Singh to their only brother Pawandeep Singh. It is also stated that none of the legal heirs of the deceased had made any complaint against Yog Raj and the attestation done by him was not mala fide. It was also contended that Manmohan Singh had no locus standi and was not a necessary party to the appeal. The learned counsel for respondent also referred to 1983 PLJ 142 titled as Kashmira Singh v. The Financial Commissioner and another, wherein it has been held that (a) Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 16(ii)(a) - Interpretation of - Lambardar convicted for offence under Section 325 IPC - Sentence 6 months R.I. and fine Rs. 200/-. Causing of blunt weapon injuries - Does not indicate criminality - Conviction for such offence - Does not render incumbent of office unfit to discharge duties of a Lambardar - 1973 PLJ 157 distinguished as Lambardar not to discharge any judicial functions." 9. Based on the contentions of the learned counsels of both the parties and perusal of the record, it is found that it cannot be accepted that opportunity has not been given to Yog Raj by the Collector before his removal. The fact that show-cause notice was issued and a reply given by Yog Raj amply proves this point. It also cannot be denied that the pedigree table attested Yog Raj was not complete and, in fact, false. He has no discretion or choice in stating facts in the pedigree table. The fact that show-cause notice was issued and a reply given by Yog Raj amply proves this point. It also cannot be denied that the pedigree table attested Yog Raj was not complete and, in fact, false. He has no discretion or choice in stating facts in the pedigree table. Whether the other heirs daughters or wife of the deceased had any claim or relinquished their claims is a issue which was not for him to decide. The statement made by Dilbag Singh real brother of the deceased who had married the wife of the deceased that the mutation be sanctioned in favour of the only son Pawandeep Singh is again some thing which should not lead to any misstatement or the deletion from the pedigree table. The case law referred by the learned counsel for respondent that conviction of the Lambardar in a criminal matter does not render him unfit to discharge duties of Lambardar as he does not discharge any judicial function, cannot be accepted as it does not cover the present case. Accordingly, after due consideration of the contentions of both the parties and the available record, the revision petition is accepted and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar dated 14.5.2001 is restored. Order reserved on 17.1.2005 is announced and written today. Parties be informed. Revision allowed.