LAWS(P&H)-2003-9-82

MOHAN SINGH Vs. SODHI SINGH

Decided On September 25, 2003
MOHAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
Sodhi Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision appeal against the order of the Commissioner, Patiala Division dated 29th May, 2001 in the matter of Lambardari of the Village Dugri, Tehsil and District Ludhiana vide which he set aside the order of the District Collector dated 12.1.1999, and appointed the present appellant Mohan Singh as Lambardar of the village Dugri. Vide this order the Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector, Ludhiana and appointed the present respondent Sodhi Singh as Lambardar of Village Dugri.

(2.) ON behalf of the appellant it has been argued that the order of the Commissioner, Patiala Division is perverse and requires to be set aside. It does not give adequate justification for setting aside the choice of the Collector Ludhiana of Shri Mohan Singh appellant to be appointed as Lambardar. It is averred that the Commissioner has not appreciated various qualifications that the appellant has e.g. his age, educational qualification, good character, residence in the village Dugri, recommendation of the Naujawan Sabha, recommendation of the President, Dugri Welfare Society, the fact that the appellant's wife was a member of the Panchayat for ten years, and the recommendation of the Durga Mata Mandir Committee. It has been further averred that the Commissioner ignored the various factors which make the respondent a less desirable choice as Lambardar as compared to the appellant. These are the fact that the respondent is a defaulter, that he collected Rs. 400.00 each from the residents of village Jamalpur for allotment of plots but did not get the plots allotted that he is running a business in village Dhandra and, therefore, is not a full time resident of village Dugri, and there is Civil and Criminal litigation pending against the respondent. In addition to the above it was further averred that there are certain factual errors and inconsistencies in the order of the Commissioner. For example in Commissioner's orders in the 2nd paragraph it is recorded that the appellant (defendant in the present case) is 47 years old yet in para 4 it is recorded that he is 54 years old. Further it is recorded that in para 2 the present respondent runs a shop village in village Dugri whereas factually this is not correct and shop is in village Dhandran. In view of this, it has been argued that the Commissioner has not applied his mind carefully and has set aside order of the Collector in an unjustified manner. It has been prayed that the order of the Commissioner be set aside and the order of the Collector allowed to prevail.

(3.) DURING the course of arguments an issue was raised that the certificate attested by the Sarpanch of village Dhandra that the respondent Sodhi Singh runs a shop in that village in a forged certificate. It was alleged by the Counsel for the respondent that the signatures and rubber stamp of the Sarpanch are forged. This was contested by the counsel for the appellant stating that the rubber stamp matches with other documents establish that the certificate was issued by this Sarpanch.