Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 853 (PNJ)

Mohinder Singh s/o Balwant Singh Lambardar v. Gurdeep Singh s/o Mithu Singh

2015-05-05

KARAN AVTAR SINGH

body2015
ORDER 1. This revision petition under section 16 of the Punjab. Land Revenue Act, 1887 has been preferred against order dated 21-8-2013 passed by Commissioner, Faridkot Division and order dated 20-12-2012 passed by District Collector, Bathinda in the matter of appointment of Lambardar. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on the death of Balwant Singh incumbent Lambardar of village Bangi Ruldu, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, proceedings were initiated to fill up the same. Gurdeep Singh (respondent) was appointed new Lambardar of the village by the District Collector, Bathinda vide his order 20-12-2012. Against this order appeal by Mohinder Singh before Commissioner, Faridkot Division was dismissed on 21-8-2013, leading to the present revision. 3. Arguments of counsel for both the parties were heard on 7-4-2015. Counsel for the respondent submitted written arguments as well. Petitioner has impugned the order of Commissioner for failing to address the lacunae in the Collector’s order which ignored his performance as Sarbrah Lambardar for two years, as held by the High Court in a number of decisions including Salamat Rai versus Dula Ram, 1980 PLJ 549. That his hereditary claim was also ignored by Collector in violation of Rules and judgments of High Court such as Tarsem Singh v. Nasib Singh, 1986 RRR 243. A FIR No. 139 dated 21-11-2012 registered against respondent and as per ruling 2009(3) PLR 708 this is sufficient to disqualify him. Further, this vacancy is of Daddu Patti, whereas respondent belongs to Mehram Patti, which disqualifies him according to judgment of the High Court in Satish Kumar Versus financial Commissioner. It is settled law (Surinder Pal Singh versus Financial Commissioner 1992(2) RRR 95) that the Collector’s order appointing a Lambardar must be a speaking order clearly discussing and appreciating merits of candidates. On all these grounds the impugned order be set aside. 4. Respondents case is that the impugned order correctly refuses to disturb the Collector’s order which is a detailed, well reasoned order covering the relative merits of candidates. Respondent is admittedly better educated and owns sufficient land. Petitioner’s hereditary claim cannot be given undue weightage since it is only one of sevral relevant factors. As regards FIR No. 139 respondent was acquitted by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo on 1-7-2013 and the petitioner has concealed this fact known to him in this petition dated 23-9-2013. Respondent is admittedly better educated and owns sufficient land. Petitioner’s hereditary claim cannot be given undue weightage since it is only one of sevral relevant factors. As regards FIR No. 139 respondent was acquitted by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo on 1-7-2013 and the petitioner has concealed this fact known to him in this petition dated 23-9-2013. The High Court held in Ram Pal versus Deputy Commissioner, Karnal 2012(5)RCR (C) 493 that :- “.....it has not been disputed that respondent No.4 was acquitted in the criminal case, not by giving him benefit of doubt, but because of the fact that none of the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution case. In view of this fact, the division Bench judgement of this court in Jog Dhian v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2005(2) PLR 306, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the aforesaid case, the candidates for the post of Lambardar was acquitted in a criminal case by giving him benefit of doubt and in the light of that, it was observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case, stigma on the candidate was not completely washed out and in such case, the Collector should appoint other candidate as Lambardar, who equally has good record, without any blame. That judgement is not applicable in the facts of the present case.” As regards this post of Lambardar belonging to Patti Daddu there is no record to support petitioner’s contention. Neither the village record of rights nor the Collector’s proclamation and appointment order make any such reference. The High Court held in Ranjit Singh v. FC, [2015(6) Law Herald (P&H) 186 (DB) : 2013 LawHerald.Org 3561] : LPA 780 of 2011 decided on 14-8-15, as follows :- “Intention of the Collector to appoint Lambardar for a Sub-division in village, can be gathered only from the proclamation made in the village and not otherwise. Unless in the proclamation it is mentioned that a Lambardar is for a particular Patti, it cannot be treated as such.” As regards relative merits, respondent is a graduate and owns 12 kanals 17 marlas of land, whereas petitioner is 5th pass and owns lesser land. All other facts regarding community activities and social influence have been assessed by the Collector. Thus the Commissioner has rightly upheld that order. 5. All other facts regarding community activities and social influence have been assessed by the Collector. Thus the Commissioner has rightly upheld that order. 5. I have perused the record and find that there is no documentary evidence to support petitioner’s claim that this vacancy of Lambardar was intended particularly for Patti Daddu or any such sub-division and not for entire revenue estate. As regards the FIR against respondent and his subsequent acquittal, his case is fully covered by the judgment in Ram Pal’s case quoted above. The Collector’s order is a detailed, well reasoned order which has been correctly upheld by the impugned order, since it is settled law that the Collector is best placed to select a Lambardar and a revisionary authority should not interfere with such an order unless some illegality or perversity is apparent, accordingly the petition is dismissed. Announced.