Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 82 (PNJ)

Ranjit Singh v. Rajinderpal Singh

2015-01-13

I.A.S.KARAN AVTAR SINGH

body2015
ORDER 1. This is a revision petition u/s 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 challenging the order dated 11-09-2013 of Commissioner Faridkot Division and order dated 15-06-2012 of Collector (ADC), Faridkot in the lambardari matter. 2. Jasvir Singh previous Lambardar of village Sandhwan, Tehsil and District Faridkot, proceedings were initiated to fill up the vacancy and accordingly proclamation was made in the village inviting applications from the interested candidates. In response, 7 candidates applied. Tehsildar Faridkot recommended the name of Rajinderpal Singh (respondent) and forwarded the case to Sub Divisional Magistrate, who endorsed the recommendation of the Tehsildar and forwarded the case to District Collector, Faridkot, who after hearing the candidates and evaluating their comparative merits, appointed Rajinder Pal Singh (respondent No.1) as new Lambardar of the village, vide order dated 23-10-2007. Against this order, Birinder Singh and Ranjit Singh filed two separate appeals before Commissioner, who after hearing the parties appointed Ranjit Singh (present petitioner) as new Lambardar of the village vide his order dated 28-01-2009. Against the above order two separate revision were filed by Rajinder Pal Singh and Birinder Singh before Financial Commissioner Appeals-I, who vide order dated 19-01-2009 remanded the case to District Collector for fresh decision after ascertaining true facts of adverse possession of Rajinder Pal Singh on the hadarori land, which belongs to the panchayat, after getting an inspection made through Sub Divisional officer (Civil) of concerned Sub Division. During the proceedings before District Collector, Ranjit Singh (present petitioner) filed an application before Commissioner Faridkot to transfer the case to some other court. The Commissioner vide order dated 4-1-2012 transferred the case to the Collector (ADC), Faridkot. The Collector (ADC), Faridkot, after hearing the parties and considering the report of Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 3-3-2011, did not find Rajinder Pal Singh in possession of the Panchayat ‘hadarori’ land and appointed him as new Lambardar of the village, vide his order dated 15-06-2012. Aggrieved with this order, Ranjit Singh filed an appeal before Commissioner, Faridkot Division, who vide order dated 11.09.2013 dismissed the same, leading to the present revision. 3. Arguments of counsel for both the parties were heard on 6-1-2015. 4. I have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Aggrieved with this order, Ranjit Singh filed an appeal before Commissioner, Faridkot Division, who vide order dated 11.09.2013 dismissed the same, leading to the present revision. 3. Arguments of counsel for both the parties were heard on 6-1-2015. 4. I have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Counsel for petitioner argues that Additional Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot was not competent to appoint a lambardar since only the Deputy Commissioner can exercise powers of Collector in such cases. However, I find that in the present case the Commissioner had specially transferred the case to Additional Deputy Commissioner Faridkot for a decision on an application filed by petitioner. Counsel has failed to show any factual error in the Collector’s order. I find it is a well reasoned order that weighs the merits of candidates and reconsider findings on all facts including alleged illegal omission. Hence, I agree with the Commissioner who records that:- “It is also a settled law that choice of the Collector for appointment of Lambardar cannot be brushed aside until and unless the same suffers from any perversity or illegality, but in the present case, the appellant has failed to point out any such illegality or perversity, which may go to the root of the case. In these circumstances, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 15-6-2012 passed by the Collector (A.D.C), Faridkot and as such the same is upheld and resultantly, this appeal is dismissed, being without any merit.” Hence the petition is dismissed. Announced. —————————