SUKHDEV RAJ Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision under Section 16 of Punjab Land Revenue 1887 against the order dated 18.12.2007 and 31.7.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and the District Collector, Gurdaspur respectively regarding Lambardar case.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that after the death of Des Raj, Lambardar of village Jagowal Bedian Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, proceedings were initiated to fill up the vacancy and the proclamation was made in the village for inviting the applications from the eligible persons. In response to the proclamation present petitioner and respondent applied for the post. After completing the initial formalities, A.C. IInd Grade, Kalanuar recommended the name of Sukhdev Raj for the post of Lambardar and forwarded the case to A.C. Ist Grade, Gurdaspur. A.C. Ist grade, Gurdaspur recommended the name of Ranjit Singh for the post of Lambardar and forwarded the case to District Collector, Gurdaspur for decision. District Collector, Gurdaspur after hearing the candidates and considering their comparative merits appointed Ranjit Singh (respondent) as Lambardar of village Jagowal Bedian, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur vide order dated 31.2.2007. Aggrieved by this order, Sukhdev Raj filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar who after hearing both the parties and going through the record of lower Courts, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 18.12.2007. Hence the present revision before this Court.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has submitted that impugned order dated 18.12.2007 passed by the Commissioner and order dated 31.7.2007 passed by the District Collector were against law and facts on the file. The District Collector while appointing Lambardar had ignored the merits of the petitioner. Counsel submitted that petitioner Sukhdev Raj was the son of deceased Lambardar and the has sufficient experience for the post of Lambardar. He used to deposit government dues in the Government Treasury, thus has sufficient experience about the work of a Lambardar. His name was recommended by the Naib Tehsildar for appointment. He was a mature person of 65 years, whereas the respondent was 36 years old. Counsel cited 1987 PLJ 246, Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 - Lambardar, appointment of - Age of candidates - No upper age limit prescribed by Rules - Lambardar has to be active and fit - Lambardar candidate over 70 years of age - If neither very old nor physically disabled - No bar to be appointed as Lambardar. Petitioner was permanent resident of village Jagowal Bedian and he was recorded as voter in the voter list, has Ration card in the village and Tehsildar has issued residence certificate in his favour. He has also voter identity card electric connection in his name. So all these documents specifically proved that Sukhdev Raj was a permanent resident of the village. The villagers has given written recommendation in favour of the petitioner and Panchayat has passed a resolution in his favour. The respondent has got fraudulently affidavits that Sukhdev Raj was not living in the village Jagowal Bedian. The same has been disproved by giving affidavits by six persons of the village. Moreover, complaint u/s 384/348/471/196/199/200 and 10-B IPC was pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur against the respondent. The false allegation that Sukhdev Raj has ration card in village Kalanaur was liable to be discarded being baseless. On the facts given above petitioners counsel prayed that revision be accepted and order of the lower revenue Courts be set aside.