Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1257 (PNJ)

Waryam Singh v. Kundan Singh

2012-09-20

JAGPAL SINGH SANDHU

body2012
ORDER Mr. Jagpal Singh, J.: - This is a revision petition field under S.16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 10.08.09 passed by Commissioner Jalandhar, Division, Jalandhar whereby he has dismissed the appeal field by present petitioner against the order dated 27.11.07 passed by the Collector. 2. Brief facts of the case are that after the death of Lambardar Achhar Singh s/o Sadha Singh of the village Kot Khalsa, Tehsil Amritsar-II, District Amritsar, necessary proclamation was conducted in the village to fill up the vacancy. 3 applications were received. The Collector after considering the merits of the candidates appointed respondent Kundan Singh as Lambardar vide order dated 27.11.2007. The present petitioner and the other candidate Jagir Singh preferred two different appeals before the Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar who also vide single order dated 10-08-2009 rejected both the appeals. Hence the present revision petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds taken in the revision petition. He argued that the petitioner was younger in age where as respondent was very old man and of week health. The petitioner has studied upto 9th class and had been working as Aarzi Lambardar for the last 15 years, thus, had the experience to discharge the duties of Lambardar effectively. He further argued that mere registration of F.I.R. against him was not no a disqualification for post of Lambardar. He prayed for acceptance of the revision petition. He prayed for acceptance of the revision petition. 4. Counsel for the respondent argued that the respondent was an ex-serviceman, he has studied upto 9th class, him name was recommended by the SDM Amritsar-II. The District Collector had rightly appointed him as Lambardar. He further argued that petitioner could not prove that he had worked as Aarzi Lambardar. He prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 5. I have gone through the arguments put forth by the counsel for both the parties, orders and record of the lower court. There is nothing on the record which it can prove that petitioner has been working as Aarzi Lambardar. The merits of the candidates have already been discussed by the Collector. It is settled law that there is no need to reverse the choice of the Collector unless it suffers from gross irregularity, perversity or there is some patent error in his appointment. The merits of the candidates have already been discussed by the Collector. It is settled law that there is no need to reverse the choice of the Collector unless it suffers from gross irregularity, perversity or there is some patent error in his appointment. The petitioner has failed to point out any infirmity in the order of the Collector. Accordingly, the revision petition is rejected. Announced.