Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 293 (HP)

Palak Ram Lambardar v. State of H. P

2010-02-05

P.MITRA

body2010
ORDER P. Mitra., IAS - This revision has been filed by the petitioner against the orders of the Commissioner, Shimla division dated 5.9.2007 in appeal no. 262/2004. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Tehsildar cum-Sub-Registrar, Kasauli submitted a report dated 29.9.1999 to the Deputy Commissioner, Solan stating therein that the appellant Sh. Palak Ram, Lambardar of Kasauli Circle stood as an identifier of the seller Sh. Niranjan Singh in a sale deed executed on 24.5.1999. It was further stated that the owner of the land that was sold by way of the sale deed ibid, made a representation before the Sub-Registrar, Kasauli on 14.9.1999 stating therein that he had never executed the sale deep in respect of the land owned by him and that the sale deed in question has been executed by way of impersonation. The Collector, Solan District took cognizance of the report submitted by the Tehsildar, Kasauli and issued a show cause notice to the present appellant date 1.10.1999. The Collector thereafter proceeded with case and removed the appellant Sh. Palak Ram from the post of Lambardar of Bhoj Kasauli vide order dated 15.6.2004. Against this order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Shimla division on the grounds that the Collector had not taken into consideration the fact that there was not even a single complaint against him throughout his career of 34 years as Lambardar, that the bonafide mistake of the appellant was taken so seriously that he had been removed from the post of the Lambardar and that the Collector could not appreciate that the findings against the appellant had been recorded on the basis of flimsy grounds. After hearing the parties, the Commissioner has dismissed the appeal vide order dated 5.9.2007. Hence, this second appeal has been filed before this court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and Dy. D.A.(Rev.) for respondent/State. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the sale deed executed before Sub-Registrar, Kasauli, Sh. Palak Ram Lambardar of Bhoj Kasauli identified the parties. He stated that the proceedings againstSh. Palak Ram are for wrongly appearing as witness; that he is 80 years old and his bona fides have not been challenged. According to learned counsel the statement of Sh. Gopal Singh has not been appreciated the evidence and the services rendered by Sh. Palak Ram Lambardar of Bhoj Kasauli identified the parties. He stated that the proceedings againstSh. Palak Ram are for wrongly appearing as witness; that he is 80 years old and his bona fides have not been challenged. According to learned counsel the statement of Sh. Gopal Singh has not been appreciated the evidence and the services rendered by Sh. Palak Ram and stated that the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner may be set aside. 4. In reply, the learned Dy. D.A. (Revenue) for State has argued that since Sh. Palak Ram is working for 34 years. He should be more careful. He submitted that in the instant case he was identifying the seller but he has admitted before the Deputy Commissioner that he did not know the seller. 5. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that the working of 34 years is very important; there is no complaints throughout this period. It has been contended that he has acted bonafidely and there is no question of bribery. Learned counsel further stated that the appellant has been acquitted in a case under section 420 of the IPC by the District Judge and lastly that the trial court has not considered the statement of Sh. Gopal Singh, witness. 6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels for both the parties and have perused the records of the below. At the outset it is pertinent to point out that this is a second appeal/revision against the order of the District Collector dated 15.6.2004. The first appeal had Palak Ram Lambardar v. State of H.P. 335 been filed against the aforesaid order before the Commissioner, Shimla division, who vide the impugned order dated 5.9.2007 passed in Revenue Appeal No. 262/ 2004 has upheld the order of the District Collector. Under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, the concurrent findings of two courts cannot be challenged in a second appeal. Therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable before this court. However, in the interest of justice and equity. I proceed to consider the present appeal by treating it as a revision petition. 7. The District Collector vide his order dated 15.6.2004 passed in case No. 57/13 of 1999, ordered the removal of the appellant Sh. Palak Ram lambardar of Bhoj Kasauli, Tehsil Kasauli, Distt. However, in the interest of justice and equity. I proceed to consider the present appeal by treating it as a revision petition. 7. The District Collector vide his order dated 15.6.2004 passed in case No. 57/13 of 1999, ordered the removal of the appellant Sh. Palak Ram lambardar of Bhoj Kasauli, Tehsil Kasauli, Distt. Solan on the report of Tchsildar Kasauli who had reported to him that the aforesaid Lambardar has made false identification in sale deed no. 146 dated 24.5.1999 executed by one Smt. Kamla and Sh. Niranjan Singh in favour of Smt. Nirmla wife of Sh. Gopal Singh, r/o Village Tiron, Pargana Baghet, Tehsil Kasauli. The District Collector after holding a detailed inquiry, considered the pros and cons of the case and after going through the statements of the parties and PWs recorded before him, has passed the order of the removal of the appellant Sh. Palak Ram. It is not disputed that the appellant has wrongly identified the seller at the instance of one Sh. Gopal Singh whom he knew personally or to whom he was related whereas the seller was actually not personally known to him. This wrong act on the part of the appellant has resulted in wrong identification of the seller thereby leading to wrong execution of sale deed. The duties of the Lambardars are well defined under the Lambardari Rules. The act and conduct of the lambardar is supposed to be above board and he honesty and integrity of Lambardars under no circumstances should come under suspicion. Havoc of unimaginable magnitude can result from such wrong identification of sellers. In such circumstances, the order of the District Collector are very much justified. I also do not find any perversity or infirmity in the order passed by the District Collector. Similarly, the impugned order of the Commissioner also do not call for any interference. 8. In these circumstances, the revision petition is dismissed and the orders of the lower courts are upheld. 9. Order be communicated to the parties. Record of the courts below be returned and the file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion. M.R.B.