Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1793 (PNJ)

Sukhdev Raj v. Ranjit Singh

2010-05-26

JAGPAL SINGH SANDHU

body2010
Judgment Jagpal Singh Sandhu, J. 1. This is a revision under Section 16 of Punjab Land Revenue 1887 against the order dated 18.12.2007 and 31.7.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and the District Collector, Gurdaspur respectively regarding Lambardar case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that after the death of Des Raj, Lambardar of village Jagowal Bedian Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, proceedings were initiated to fill up the vacancy and the proclamation was made in the village for inviting the applications from the eligible persons. In response to the proclamation present petitioner and respondent applied for the post. After completing the initial formalities, A.C. IInd Grade, Kalanuar recommended the name of Sukhdev Raj for the post of Lambardar and forwarded the case to A.C. Ist Grade, Gurdaspur. A.C. Ist grade, Gurdaspur recommended the name of Ranjit Singh for the post of Lambardar and forwarded the case to District Collector, Gurdaspur for decision. District Collector, Gurdaspur after hearing the candidates and considering their comparative merits appointed Ranjit Singh (respondent) as Lambardar of village Jagowal Bedian, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur vide order dated 31.2.2007. Aggrieved by this order, Sukhdev Raj filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar who after hearing both the parties and going through the record of lower Courts, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 18.12.2007. Hence the present revision before this Court. 3. Written arguments of counsel for both the parties are on record. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that impugned order dated 18.12.2007 passed by the Commissioner and order dated 31.7.2007 passed by the District Collector were against law and facts on the file. The District Collector while appointing Lambardar had ignored the merits of the petitioner. Counsel submitted that petitioner Sukhdev Raj was the son of deceased Lambardar and the has sufficient experience for the post of Lambardar. He used to deposit government dues in the Government Treasury, thus has sufficient experience about the work of a Lambardar. His name was recommended by the Naib Tehsildar for appointment. He was a mature person of 65 years, whereas the respondent was 36 years old. He used to deposit government dues in the Government Treasury, thus has sufficient experience about the work of a Lambardar. His name was recommended by the Naib Tehsildar for appointment. He was a mature person of 65 years, whereas the respondent was 36 years old. Counsel cited 1987 PLJ 246, Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 - Lambardar, appointment of - Age of candidates - No upper age limit prescribed by Rules - Lambardar has to be active and fit - Lambardar candidate over 70 years of age - If neither very old nor physically disabled - No bar to be appointed as Lambardar. Petitioner was permanent resident of village Jagowal Bedian and he was recorded as voter in the voter list, has Ration card in the village and Tehsildar has issued residence certificate in his favour. He has also voter identity card electric connection in his name. So all these documents specifically proved that Sukhdev Raj was a permanent resident of the village. The villagers has given written recommendation in favour of the petitioner and Panchayat has passed a resolution in his favour. The respondent has got fraudulently affidavits that Sukhdev Raj was not living in the village Jagowal Bedian. The same has been disproved by giving affidavits by six persons of the village. Moreover, complaint u/s 384/348/471/196/199/200 and 10-B IPC was pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur against the respondent. The false allegation that Sukhdev Raj has ration card in village Kalanaur was liable to be discarded being baseless. On the facts given above petitioners counsel prayed that revision be accepted and order of the lower revenue Courts be set aside. 5. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the revenue authorities after determining the availability and suitability of candidates found the respondent to be more meritorious as he was younger in age being 36 years, well educated having studied upto 10+2, sufficient land holding and permanent resident of the village. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gurdaspur recommended his name. The District Collector being the appointing authority had appointed him as Lambardar after determining the availability and suitability of the candidates. District Collector found that Sukhdev Raj was not a permanent resident of village Jagowal Bedian, rather the voter list and ration card which were on record, clearly showed the petitioner to be a resident of village Kalanaur. The District Collector being the appointing authority had appointed him as Lambardar after determining the availability and suitability of the candidates. District Collector found that Sukhdev Raj was not a permanent resident of village Jagowal Bedian, rather the voter list and ration card which were on record, clearly showed the petitioner to be a resident of village Kalanaur. The District Collector has found that petitioner has got prepared ration card and voter list in both villages, which was not permissible and legally admissible. Majority of the villagers have recommended his name and Panchayat Nama duly signed by all respectable persons of the village also showed the good reputation and influence of the respondent. Sub Divisional Magistrate had recommended his name. The Gram Panchayat of village Jagowal Bedian has reported that Sukhdev Raj petitioner was residing in village Kalanaur for the last 15 years and this fact was duly got verified from the Assistant Food and Supplies Officer, Kalanaur, who has reported vide letter No. 336 dated 5.6.2007. Thus the petitioner did not fulfill the basic ingredients for appointment to the post. Moreover the double ration card and voter list proved that conduct of the petitioner was not trust worthy. The availability of the petitioner to the villagers would be doubtful, where as the respondent would be available in the village all the time. As laid down in Joginder Singh v. Baljit Raj, 1997(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 28 : 1997 (1) PLJ 230, Counsel further cited High Court judgement in Ujagar Singhs case where it has been held that District Collector is the competent authority in appointing Lambardar and selection made by the Collector can be interfered by appellant authority only if the order suffers from any serious disability. Counsel also cited Nirbhey Singh v. F.C. Haryana, 2007(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 594 : 2008 (1) PLR 156, where in a person to be appointed on the post of Lambardar should enjoy good reputation and unblemished image besides having personal influence in the locality. Counsel further cited Darshan Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab 2009(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 387 : 2009(2) LAR 358 where the choice of District Collector honoured. Thus District Collector appointed respondent as Lambardar being more meritorious and deserving candidate and issued Sanad Lambardari in his favour. Further the Commissioner had also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner filed against above order. 6. Counsel further cited Darshan Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab 2009(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 387 : 2009(2) LAR 358 where the choice of District Collector honoured. Thus District Collector appointed respondent as Lambardar being more meritorious and deserving candidate and issued Sanad Lambardari in his favour. Further the Commissioner had also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner filed against above order. 6. I have thoroughly considered the written submissions of counsel for both the parties and have perused the record of the case minutely. I tend to agree with the arguments submitted by the respondent. District Collector has rightly ignored the petitioner being not the permanent resident of village Jagowal Bedian. Petitioner is residing in village Kalanaur. He has got prepared his ration card and voter list in both villages which puts question mark on his trustworthness. Further Commissioner also dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of the District Collector. I find no illegality/irregulairty or any perversity in the order of lower revenue Courts. The same are upheld. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly. Announced.