Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3054 (PNJ)

Mehar Singh @ Bharpur Singh v. Pritpal Singh

2010-11-12

ROMILA DUBEY

body2010
ORDER Smt. Romila Dubey, I.A.S. - This appeal is under section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 29.7.10 of Commissioner Patiala Division, Patiala. 2. Dispute regarding lambardari of village Rauni Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana was transferred to District Rupnagar who after evaluating the inter se merit of both the candidates i.e. appointed the present appellant as lambardar of village Rauni vide his order dated 9.12.09. Aggrieved by this order, Pritpal Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner Patiala Division, Patiala who vide his order dated 29.7.10 accepted the same, set aside the order dated 9.12.09 of District Collector and remanded the case back to Distt. Collector Rupnagar for fresh decision. Hence the present appeal. 3. I have carefully perused the written arguments filed by both the counsel, as well as orders of the lower courts. Main contention of the appellant is that he is more educated as he is matriculate and the respondent is 7th pass only; and Collector appointed him as lambardar after evaluating the comparative merit of both the candidates. It is argued that choice of the Collector is not to be interfered with unless and until there is any patent illegality or perversity. It is alleged that respondent was defaulter because he did not deposit amount of Rs. 2800/- regarding water connection. It is alleged that though the respondent is son of deceased Lambardar, he illegally acted as Sarbrah lambardar from 1990 to 2004 and attested sale deed dated 4.7.94 as lambardar, whereas he was never appointed as Sarbrah lambardar by any competent authority. Moreover after the death of original lambardar he was not to continue as Sarbrah lambardar. It is averred that appellant is younger in age than the respondent and is not defaulter of any society and possess good reputation in the village. 4. On the other hand it is contended by counsel for respondent that the District Collector appointed the present appellant as lambardar because he has been biased due to the transfer applications moved by the present respondent and thus the Collector ignored merit of the respondent. It is averred that order passed by Commissioner are well reasoned. The respondent is son of deceased Lambardar Mohinder Singh and as such has hereditary claim. But this argument has been controverted by counsel for the petitioner stating that hereditary claim has already been declared ultra virus and unconstitutional. It is averred that order passed by Commissioner are well reasoned. The respondent is son of deceased Lambardar Mohinder Singh and as such has hereditary claim. But this argument has been controverted by counsel for the petitioner stating that hereditary claim has already been declared ultra virus and unconstitutional. It is averred by counsel for respondent that the case has been simply remanded to the District Collector for passing fresh orders after hearing both the parties and therefore need not be interfered. Both the counsel have referred to various citations in support of their contention. 5. Having paid due consideration to the whole case I find force in the present appeal. It is settled law that choice of the Collector is to be upheld unless and until it suffers from any patent illegality or perversity. Order passed by the District Collector on 9.12.09 appointing appellant Mohar Singh @ Bharpur Singh are detailed and fully justified wherein merit of both the candidates have been discussed in detail. Mohinder Singh previous lambardar, who was father of the present respondent, died on 16.11.90 and action to fill up this vacancy was initiated only on 15.9.05 almost after 15 years. Respondent contended before the lower courts as well as before this court that he remained as Sarbrah of his father and as such is very well aware of the job/duties of lambardar. Being Sarbrah lambardar and the son of deceased lambardar, it was his duty to inform about the death of previous lambardar Mohinder Singh to the revenue authorities to initiate action for appointment of new lambardar. But the present respondent failed to perform his duty and action for appointment of new lambardar could be initiated only in 2005. Obviously respondent acted in a irresponsible way. In merit also, the present appellant has edge over the respondent being more educated and younger in age. The point raised by the Commissioner in the impugned order regarding preference for being Sarbrah lambardar and of hereditary claim are not relevant, since the appellant had edge over the respondent in merit. Order of the Collector are well reasoned and justified and deserve to be upheld. Accordingly I accept the present appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 29.7.10 of Commissioner. Both the parties be informed through their counsel. .