Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 740 (PNJ)

Angrej Singh v. Kuldeep Singh

2005-07-13

RUPAN DEOL BAJAJ

body2005
ORDER Rupan Deol Bajaj, FC. - This revision petition is under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against the order dated 28.8.2002 of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and order dated 14.3.2001 of the Collector, Amritsar. 2. The brief facts of this case are that respondent Kuldeep Singh son of Santokh Singh, vide his application dated 23.2.2002, addressed to Tehsildar Amirtsar, stated that the lambardar of the village Varpal Kalan, Tehsil and District Amritsar had died on 14.2.1997. He requested for his appointment as lambardar of the village. Accordingly the Collector Amritsar vide order No. Reader/D.C./425 dated 13.6.2000 allowed the striking off the name of lambardar Prem Singh from Sr. No. 263 of Lambardari Register and to initiate proceedings for the appointment of new lambardar. After getting the Mushtri Munadi done, Tehsildar Amritsar-II, recommended the name of Kuldeep Singh for appointment of lambardar of village Varpal Kalan, Tehsil and District Amritsar, vide No. Reader/1257 dated 8.8.2000, read with No. 1639/Reader dated 7.11.2000, that no other application has been received. The SDM also recommended the name of the respondent on 9.1.2001 and sent the case to District Collector Amritsar who appointed the respondent Kuldeep Singh as Lambardar vide his order dated 14.3.2001. 3. On the other hand the present petitioner Angrej Singh vide his application dated 6.11.2000, addressed to Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, stated that his father Prem Singh son of Labh Singh, who was the pacca lambardar of the village had died on 14.2.1997. He requested for appointment of lambardar in place of his father Prem Singh lambardar. The case was processed and vide order No. Reader/D.C./893 dated 11.12.2000, the District Collector passed order to strike off the name of Prem Singh lambardar from the Sr. No. 263 of the lambardari register and also allowed to initiate proceedings for the appointment of new lambardar. Tehsildar Amritsar-II vide No. Reader/387 dated 10.4.2001 stated that Mushtri Munadi was done for inviting applications from the interested persons upto 8.1.2001 and no other application has been received. The report of the Mushtri Munadi is entered at Sr. No. 151 dated 27.12.2000. Tehsildar Amritsar-II accordingly recommended the name of Angrej Singh for appointment as Lambardar of village Varpal Kalan in place of his father, deceased Lambardar Prem Singh. The SDM, Amritsar-II also recommended to Collector Amritsar the name of Angrej Singh for appointment as lambdardar on 17.4.2001. The report of the Mushtri Munadi is entered at Sr. No. 151 dated 27.12.2000. Tehsildar Amritsar-II accordingly recommended the name of Angrej Singh for appointment as Lambardar of village Varpal Kalan in place of his father, deceased Lambardar Prem Singh. The SDM, Amritsar-II also recommended to Collector Amritsar the name of Angrej Singh for appointment as lambdardar on 17.4.2001. The case was fixed before Collector Amritsar when respondent Kuldeep Singh appeared before him and gave an application that he has already been appointed as Lambardar of the village Varpal Kalan, Tehsil and District Amritsar and also produced a copy of the Sanad Lambardari, issued vide No. Reader/D.C./206 dated 9.4.2001. Accordingly the Collector Amritsar vide his order dated 24.5.2001 filed the application of Angrej Singh the petitioner. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.3.2001 Angrej Singh filed appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar who dismissed the same vide his order dated 28.2.2002. Still aggrieved Angrej Singh filed revision before this Court. 5. During the course of arguments the counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds taken in the revision. He emphasised mainly the point that application dated 6.112000 of the petitioner for appointment as lambardar was not linked/taken into consideration by Collector while passing the impugned order dated 14.3.2001. He further argued that no Mushtri Munadi was conducted in village for inviting applications for the appointment of lambardar in place of Prem Singh deceased Lambardar. He has also filed an affidavit by Dharam Paul Chowkidar wherein he has stated that regarding Mushtri Munadi dated 10.10.2000, report was written by Dharam Singh the then Patwari in his office only and his signatures were obtained. This affidavit is duly attested by Executive Magistrate, Challaned Amritsar. He averred that being son of deceased lambardar he has a better title for the post of lambardar. Further the petitioner is graduate and produced photocopy of Detail Marks Card of B.A. III while the respondent is matriculate. He further alleged that the respondent is from the family of the terrorists and his two brothers namely Satnam Singh alias Satta and Manjeet Singh alias Meeta were terrorists at the time of terrorism in the State and were killed in encounter with police. The counsel for the petitioner also alleged that the respondent has been challenged in an Excise Case and filed a photocopy of Rapat No. 12 dated 20.4.2001. The counsel for the petitioner also alleged that the respondent has been challenged in an Excise Case and filed a photocopy of Rapat No. 12 dated 20.4.2001. To strengthen his cause the counsel for the petitioner cited order dated 24.12.2001 passed by the undersigned in Jasvir Singh v. Sukhwinder Singh, ROR 204 of 1999, 2002(2) PLJ 141 and the order dated 30.7.1997 of Sh. S.R. Bunger, F.C. in the case of Gurcharan Singh v. Harjinder Singh, ROR No. 34 of 1996-97, 1997(2) PLJ 234. 6. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent vehemently denied the allegations made by the counsel for the petitioner. He averred that the order of the lower Courts carries no infirmity and are required to be upheld. He denied the allegation that the report dated 10.10.2000 regarding Mushtri Munadi was made by the Patwari Halqa while sitting in his office and was got signed from Dharam Paul Chowkidar. He asserted that the Mushtri Munadi was actually done but no one, including the petitioner, applied for appointment of lambardar at that time. In his support the counsel for the respondent cited Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh revenue petition No. 1 of 1989, date of decision 17.3.1993. He said that it was only the respondent whose application was required to be considered on 14.3.2001. He argued that the petitioner is ex-serviceman and deserves consideration, rather preference, in the appointment of Lambardar. He also cited the case of Manohar Lal v. Nathu Ram Revenue Revision No. 243 of 1959-60, decided on 6.9.1960, 1960 PLJ pages 39. 7. I have heard both the counsel and have gone through the record of lower Courts and have come to the conclusion that parallel proceedings continued in two different files i.e. No. 31/D.C. dtd. 9.4.2001 (in the case of Angrej Singh) and file No. 16/D.C. dated 7.2.2001 (in the case of Kuldeep Singh). Since the application of Sh. Angrej Singh was received on 6.11.2000, much before the appointment of Kuldeep Singh as lambardar of village Varpal Kalan on 9.4.2001, it was required to be linked with the case of Kuldeep Singh by the Tehsildar/SDM/Collector. 9.4.2001 (in the case of Angrej Singh) and file No. 16/D.C. dated 7.2.2001 (in the case of Kuldeep Singh). Since the application of Sh. Angrej Singh was received on 6.11.2000, much before the appointment of Kuldeep Singh as lambardar of village Varpal Kalan on 9.4.2001, it was required to be linked with the case of Kuldeep Singh by the Tehsildar/SDM/Collector. Interestingly, the name of Prem Singh deceased lambardar of village Varpal Kalan was ordered to be struck off twice i.e. on 13.6.2000 (in the case of Kuldeep Singh) and again on 11.12.2000 (in the case of Angrej Singh) by the same District Collector and both times, it was ordered to initiate the process for the appointment of a new lambardar. Strangely on application dated 6.11.2000 of Angrej Singh, office Kanungo reported as under, on 6.11.2000 :- The Tehsildar, Amritsar-II in his report dated 6.11.2000 sent to SDM Amritsar also stated that the name of Lambardar Prem Singh son of Labh Singh resident of village Varpal Kalan is entered at Sr. No. 263 of Lambardari register, who has died. The Tehsildar, therefore, recommended to appoint a new lambardar. Same recommendations were made by SDM, Amritsar to the District Collector on 7.11.2000, who allowed the same vide his order No. Reader/Deputy Commissioner/893, dated 11.12.2000, whereas the name of Lambardar Prem Singh was already struck off on 13.6.2000 as per order No. Reader/Deputy Commissioner/425, dated 13.6.2000 of Collector Amritsar. Then, it is not understood as to why the office kanugo, Tehsildar and SDM made recommendations again to the District Collector Amritsar. It may be noted that the Tehsildar, Amritsar-II made recommendations of the name of Kuldeep Singh and sent the case to SDM on 17.10.2000. The SDM, Amritsar heard the case of Kuldeep Singh on 7.11.2000 and on the same day forwarded the case of Angrej Singh to the District Collector for orders to struck off the name of deceased lambardar Prem Singh and initiate the process for the appointment of new Lambardar. On 4.12.2000 he adjourned the case of Kuldeep Singh to 22.12.2000 and on 12.12.2000 he sent the case of Angrej Singh to Tehsildar, Amritsar-II. The last date of receipt of applications in the case of Angrej Singh was 8.1.2001 and the case of Kuldeep Singh was recommended by SDM and sent to District Collector on 9.1.2001. On 4.12.2000 he adjourned the case of Kuldeep Singh to 22.12.2000 and on 12.12.2000 he sent the case of Angrej Singh to Tehsildar, Amritsar-II. The last date of receipt of applications in the case of Angrej Singh was 8.1.2001 and the case of Kuldeep Singh was recommended by SDM and sent to District Collector on 9.1.2001. But the case of Angrej Singh remained with Tehsildar, Amritsar-II and it was recommended to SDM by him only on 10.4.2001 i.e. after the name of Kuldeep Singh was approved for appointment of lambardar vide order dated 14.3.2001 of District Collector and the issuance of Sanad Lambardari on 9.4.2001. There is no doubt, that Angrej Singh did not apply when the Mushtri Mumadi was done in the case of Kuldeep Singh, but when the Mushtri Munadi was done second time in the case of Angrej Singh also, for which Angrej Singh applied, his name should have been considered alongwith application of Kuldeep Singh. Had both the files/applications been linked, there would have been a different story. 8. Otherwise also Sh. Angrej Singh has better claim. He is graduate whereas the respondent is not even matriculate and could not even produce photo copy of the certificate. Angrej Singh is younger in age, has hereditary claim, has more land, and is resident of Patti Udian of village Varpal Kalan for which lambardars vacancy has arisen. Not only his father but his grandfather was also lambardar. His claim was not consider/kept in view while passing the impugned order dated 14.3.2001 of Collector, Amritsar appointing the respondent Kuldeep Singh as lambardar of Varpal Kalan, Tehsil and District Amritsar. The Ld. Commissioner has dismissed the appeal of petitioner Angrej Singh only on the ground that Mushtri Munadi was done and it is signed by Chowkidar and Patwari and respondent Kuldeep Singh is an ex-serviceman. 9. I do not agree with the findings of the Commissioner. The report regarding Mushtri Munadi becomes suspicious particularly in view of the affidavit of Chowkidar Dharam Paul, as produced by the counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, application of petitioner was there and very well in the knowledge of Tehsildar/SDM, and Collector before passing the impugned order dated 14.3.2001, which was not linked and considered alongwith application of respondent Kuldeep Singh. The report regarding Mushtri Munadi becomes suspicious particularly in view of the affidavit of Chowkidar Dharam Paul, as produced by the counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, application of petitioner was there and very well in the knowledge of Tehsildar/SDM, and Collector before passing the impugned order dated 14.3.2001, which was not linked and considered alongwith application of respondent Kuldeep Singh. Further, I agree with the counsel for the petitioner that the character and integrity of the candidate for lambardari should be above board, whereas, as alleged by the counsel for the petitioner the respondent has been challaned in an Excise case, Rapat No. 12, dated 20.4.2001 and allegedly belongs to a terrorist family. It is rather strange that parallel and overlapping proceedings should continue contemporaneously for over a year in both cases. It appears to be the best kept secret of the Tehsil/SDM Office/Collectorate. It must have passed through many hands including Patwari, Office Kanungo, Tehsildar, SDM, Collector and the concerned staff/branches dealing lambardari matters in all these offices. Usually the Tehsil staff knows all lambardars by face and name who are appointed for life and are almost daily visitors to the Tehsil for some work or the other. The appointment of any person is a matter of great celebration by the lambardar concerned in the Tehsil office, as well as in his village and the matter receives instant publicity. How the matter was revealed by Kuldeep Singh (earlier appointed) to Angrej Singh on the date when Angrej Singh was to be appointed, and by way of Kuldeep Singh informing Collector that he had already been appointed, is most mysterious and raises suspicion that all was not well. I also do not see that the Collector or Commissioner have ordered any inquiry into the matter, but they rather quickly accepted that fait accompli presented to them. 10. In view of the above discussion, I hereby set aside the order dated 28.8.2002 of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar as well as orders dated 14.3.2001 of Collector Amritsar vide which he appointed Kuldeep Singh respondent as lambardar and taking into account all the facts and circumstances as well as record of both the candidates on file, I do not consider it a fit case for remanding the matter back to the Collector for fresh mushtri munadi/proclamation inviting fresh applications for appointment of lambardar of village Varpal Kalan, Patti Udian, Tehsil and District Amritsar. Instead, I consider it appropriate and in the fitness of things to appoint Angrej Singh son of Sh. Prem Singh as lambardar of village Varpal Kalan, Patti Udian, Tehsil and District Amritsar. Sanad should be issued accordingly, immediately. Announced. Petition allowed.