Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1324 (PNJ)

Avtar Singh v. Jaswinder Singh

2007-07-12

B.K.SRIVASTAVA

body2007
ORDER B.K. Srivastava, F.C. - District Collector, Patiala appointed, respondent Jaswinder Singh as Lambardar of village Kuthakheri, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala vide order dated 29.09.04 with the following observations : "I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the candidates and have carefully scanned the record of the case. From the comparative merits of the candidates find that Jaswinder Singh is the most suitable candidate since he is matriculate and has also passed Technical course from I.T.I. He exercises very good influence in the village. He is member of Panchayat Samiti, Ghanaur and President of P.T.A. He has been taking part in the welfare activities of the village. He is very popular in his village. He has also been recommended by all the Revenue Officers below. I do not find any reason to differ with their recommendation and accordingly I appoint Jaswinder Singh as Lambardar of village Kutha Kheri, Tehsil Rajpura. Sanad be issued." 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Patiala dismissed the petitioners appeal vide impugned order dated 21.01.2005. The counsel for the petitioner has given the following arguments to assail these concurrent orders of Collector and Commissioner : (i) That there was a Panchayat resolution dated 10.05.2003 supporting the petitioners candidature. (ii) That he is also matriculate like Jaswinder Singh. (iii) That more than 100 persons including ex-sarpanches supported him. Page 92 of the Collectors file contains majornama (recommendations from the people/respectables of the village) in the petitioners favour which is signed by two ex-sarpanches and three lambardars. (Perusal of this page in Collectors file shows that there were just about 12-15 persons who signed it on the first page but along with the revision petition, the petitioner has attached a copy of this majornama which contains three additional pages, carrying signatures of many more persons, about another 100 persons. But, these additional pages are not part of the Collectors file). (iv) Petitioner owns 40 bighas of and whereas the respondent owns 22 bighas. (v) FIR was registered against the respondent in the year 2004 under sections 353, 332, 186, 294 and 34 IPC. 3. The respondents counsel has given following arguments to rebut the above arguments : (i) That Naksha nambardari and the order of Collector shows that the land owned by the petitioner is 7 bighas only, not 40 bighas. (v) FIR was registered against the respondent in the year 2004 under sections 353, 332, 186, 294 and 34 IPC. 3. The respondents counsel has given following arguments to rebut the above arguments : (i) That Naksha nambardari and the order of Collector shows that the land owned by the petitioner is 7 bighas only, not 40 bighas. (ii) That aforesaid FIR has been cancelled and the complaintant has made statement before the Judicial Magistrate to withdraw his allegation and he agreed with the investigation report vide which the accused was exonerated. (A copy of this statement and investigation report was also shown to the counsel for the petitioner. He does not challenge this. In view of the investigation report and the statement of the complainant, Harbans Singh, no adverse cognisance of the said FIR could be taken against the respondent). (iii) Page 112-116 of Collectors file contains majornama of 151 persons in favour of the respondent, which shows over-whelming support for the respondent in the village. (iv) Respondent is a social worker. Page 106 of the Collectors file is a blood donation certificate in favour of the respondent. (v) The concluding para of the Collectors order itself speaks volumes in favour of the respondent. 4. After conclusion of the arguments opportunity of rebuttal was given to the petitioners counsel. The above facts given by the respondent are borne out by the record. Therefore, theses remain unrebutted. In concluding remarks, the petitioners counsel said that respondent should be ignored because he had become member of Panchayat Samiti, Ghanaur and such a person could not do justice to the assignment of nambardari. He quoted an observation of Sh. C.D. Cheema, Financial Commissioner in ROR No. 562/91-92 in which it is said that the post of lambardar and Sarpanch should not be combined in one person as far as possible. The counsel for the respondent rebutted that his term as member of Panchayat Samiti already expired on 09.06.2007. 5. I am of the view that tenure as panch, sarpanch or member, Panchayat samiti should not disqualify a person to become a lambardar because : (i) The appointment of lambardar is a life long appointment whereas a tenure in these local bodies is temporary. There is no law that a lambardar cannot stand in election of these local bodies. 5. I am of the view that tenure as panch, sarpanch or member, Panchayat samiti should not disqualify a person to become a lambardar because : (i) The appointment of lambardar is a life long appointment whereas a tenure in these local bodies is temporary. There is no law that a lambardar cannot stand in election of these local bodies. That being so, such a member cannot be disqualified to be a candidate for nambardari. (ii) The election to the local bodies is not held on a party basis. Therefore unlike Assembly and Lok Sabha elections, the practice of accepting nomination of political parties is not legally permissible in the election of local bodies. (iii) The people in the village should not be deprived from participation in the local bodies because that would run counter to the spirit of 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments vide which the local bodies/panchayats were constitutionally created. (iv) The counsel for the petitioner has said that the Supreme Court also held that a sarpanch being a political person should not be allowed to be a lambardar, he quoted 2005(2) RCR(civil) Page 553. I have perused this. This judgement does not say so. Vide this judgment, SLP of Gurnam Ram was remanded to the Financial Commissioner on the ground that the case was decided by toss of coin, not on merits. Thus, this ruling has been mis-quoted. 6. After considering above arguments and facts of the case, I am of the view that the observations of the Collector due to which he appointed the respondent brook no interference and the opportunity was, therefore, rightly upheld by the Commissioner. It is a golden rule that judgment of the Collector should not be reversed unless it is perverse. When there are concurrent orders, it is not appropriate to interfere with the order unless it is shown to be perverse. 7. In view of the above facts and observations, the revision petition is dismissed. Announced. Petition dismissed.