LAWS(P&H)-2000-9-45

RACHHPAL SINGH Vs. HARKET SINGH

Decided On September 22, 2000
RACHHPAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
Harket Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 30.3.1998, passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala vide which he had accepted the appeal filed by Harket Singh, respondent against the order dated 28.7.1995, passed by the District Collector, Rupnagar in which the Collector had appointed the petitioner as Lambardar.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that consequent upon the death of Shri Madhu Sudan Singh, Lambardar of village Barari, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar, the post of Lambardar fell vacant. The vacancy was duly notified after observing all the necessary formalities and six persons applied for the post. Of the six, two persons absented themselves in the proceedings before the Naib Tehsildar Nurpur Bedi and one in the proceedings before the A.C. IInd Grade (Tehsildar) Anandpur Sahib and ex parte orders were passed against him. Of the remaining three, Mohinder Singh and Harket Singh are related to each other, being father and son. The Collector, Rupnagar appointed the 3nd candidate Shri Rachhpal Singh as Lambardar of village Barari vide her order dated 27.9.1995 adjudging him to be the most suitable for the post.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this order, Shri Rachhpal Singh, son of Ran Singh has filed the present R.O.A. in this Court. The main contentions in the appeal as well as arguments are that the Commissioner did not consider the written arguments filed by him while passing the said order, that the A.C. IInd Grade (Tehsildar) and A.C. Ist Grade (SDO)(C) both had recommended the name of the appellant and the Collector had appointed him and the Commissioner had not considered this vital aspect; that the choice of the Collector had unnecessarily been interfered with; that the appellant had been working as Lambardar since his appointment on 25.11.1995 to date and thereby balance of convenience was in his favour; that the appellant possessed about three and a half times the land i.e. 32K-19M land in village Barari when compared with the respondent who owned only 12K-1M land; that the candidate who had withdrawn in favour of the respondent Harket Singh was none other than his father, Mohinder Singh; that Mohinder Singh, the father of the respondent had also applied for the post of Lambardar but his claim was rejected by the Collector on the ground that he was also Sarpanch of the village and, therefore, two posts i.e. Lambardar and Sarpanch should not be given to the same person. The respondent was the son of the Sarpanch and giving the post of Lambardar to him would mean to give both the posts to one family. The counsel stated that the petitioner was available for service on the full time basis in the village, was educated being middle pass, and much more mature and experienced than the respondent. He was also supported by a resolution of the Panchayat. He also had a hereditary claim since the deceased Lambardar Madhu Sudan Singh was his paternal uncle (Saka Chacha). This is borne out from the report of A.C. Ist Grade Anandpur Sahib on page 127/128 of A.C.'s file. He stated that it was incorrect that the majority in the village consisted of Jatt Sikh house holds. In fact, the total number of houses was 117, of which 30 house holds were from Rajput community, 40 of Jatt community and remaining 47 house holds were of Brahimins, Harijans and Tarkhans. So the Jatt Sikhs were not of such overbearing majority that the Lambardar was necessarily to be selected from their community. Counsel also stated that three persons Bhajan Lal, Sanat Ram and Raunki had filed a complaint against the respondent-Mohinder Singh that he had forged their signatures in his own favour in a petition presented to the Tehsildar. In support he cited 1990 PLJ page 276 (b) "Punjab Land Revenue Act, Section 13 - Appeal in Lambardar case - Choice of Collector - Cannot be interfered with unless proved that Collector's reasoning perverse or that he committed illegality in passing the order - Collector after considering all the factors appointed Lambardar - Choice of Collector should not be disturbed unless there are over-whelming reasons - Commissioner coming to a different assumption about relative merits of candidates - Cannot be considered a justification for setting aside order of Collector." He also cited 1992 PLJ page 190 "Punjab Land Revenue Act, Rule 15 - Lambardar appoint of - Of Lambardar and Sarpanch - Should not be combined in one person who is equally competent, if not better and independent candidate available - Candidate Sarpanch of village - Not a disqualification for post of Lambardar - Appropriate if two posts not manned by one person as far as possible." He also cited 1997(1) PLJ page 575 (a) "Punjab Land Revenue Act, Section 16 - Revision in Lambardari case - Choice of Collector upheld in appeal by Commissioner - Order of Collector and Commissioner illegal inasmuch as important factor ignored - Financial Commissioner set aside both orders of Collector and Commissioner and appointed Lambardar in revision." (c) "Punjab Land Revenue Act, Section 16 - Revision of Lambardari case - Interference when called for - Orders of Collector and Commissioner when proved to be illegal or perverse - Financial Commissioner can interfere in revision in such type of appointment of Lambardar."