GURNAM RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER CO OP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The question is who should be the Lambardar of village Dhindsa The original lambardar died. Proceedings were initiated under the Punjab Land Revenue rules by the District Collector, Jalandhar. Out of the several candidates who applied for the post they all withdrew and only two remained, namely, the appellant and the respondent. The Collector decided in favour of the respondent on the ground that his candidature had been recommended by all the lower Revenue Officers. Additionally, it was found that, while the appellant was 28 years old, the respondent was 40 years old and was the owner of a workshop and had remained surpanch of village dhindsa for 10 years.

(3.) Being aggrieved the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, jalandhar Division. The Commissioner was of the view that the respondent should not have been appointed the Lambardar because as Surpanch of the village and he would be involved in party politics and would not have the impartiality which was necessary for a Lambardar. It was also held that the respondent had his workshop in another village and therefore would not be easily available in the village itself. On the other hand, the appellant owned 9 marlas of land in the village and also had the tailoring shop in the village. Accordingly, the appointment of the respondent was set aside.