PREM SINGH Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against the order dated 11.2.2010 passed by L.d. Commissioner, Rohtak upholding the order of Collector, Panipat. The facts of the case are that one Banwari, the Lambardar of village Ahar died in the year 1987 and the petitioner being heir of deceased Banwari continued working as Lambardar since 1987 and performed the work to the satisfaction of the authorities. The process of appoint the Lambardar was started in the year 2006 and L.d. Tehsildar Israna recommended the name or respondent No. 2 namely Satbir Singh for the vacant post of Lambardar on 7.5.2007. The recommendation was not accepted by the SDO, Panipat who vide his order dated 30.7.2007 recommended the name of respondent No. 1. The Ld. Collector, Panipat vide his order dated 10.10.2007 appointed respondent No. 1 as Lambardar. The claim of the petitioner is that he is entitled to the post of Lambardar on the basis of his hereditary claim and experience. The lower Courts have overlooked the fact that the petitioner is better qualified than respondent No. 1. He is 56 years old whereas respondent No. 1 is 41 years. He has got deposited nearly 5.47 lacs in small saving scheme as compared to 86 lacs by the respondent. He has encouraged 10 family planning cases and the respondent has 9 family planning cases. 195 persons have recommended the name of the petitioner. The petitioner is a nephew of late Lambardar Banwari and has full experience of Lambardar as he was helping his uncle in the work of Lambardar since 1987 after his uncle expired. The Ld. Commissioner has wrongly given undue weight age to the fact that a FIR was lodged against the petitioner and ignored the fact that the FIR was cancelled later on. In the end, the petitioner has prayed that the impugned order dated 11.2.2010 passed by L.d. Commissioner, Rohtak may be set aside.

(2.) I have heard both the L.d. Counsels of the parties. L.d. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated his grounds given in the revision petition that he deserves to be appointed as Lambardar, being the better qualified. On the other hand, the L.d Counsel for the respondent No. 1 argued that his candidate is more suitable being of 41 years of age, having passed 10th class and deposited 86 lacs towards small saying scheme and motivated 9 cases of family planning. He has got a good reputation in the village and 201 persons have supported his candidature. His candidate owns 88 Kanals of agricultural land. A case was registered against the petitioner and was later on decided on the basis of compromise between the parties. The order of the Collector should not be interfered with.