UDHEY SINGH Vs. VIJAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 6.1.2003 of Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala and that of District Collector, Ropar dated 26.9.2002 under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the petition are that the post of Lambardar fell vacant on 2.4.1993 after the death of Datta Ram Lambardar, village Fatehgarh Bunga. The District Collector after following the proper procedure as prescribed, finally, appointed Sh. Vijay Singh as the Lambardar of village Hardoharipur. The petitioner feeling aggrieved filed appeal in the court of Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed the same on the ground that the appellant has been convicted under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C. and was therefore, not a suitable candidate. Hence the present revision petition.

(3.) I have perused the file and given my careful consideration to the arguments led. The petitioner has been involved in criminal activity under Sections 323 and 324 IPC. The plain reading of both these sections brings out that the conviction under Section 323 involves punishment, which may extend to one year or with fine, which may extend of Rs. 1000/- or both. Similarly conviction under Section 324, may involve imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. The conviction of the petitioner has been held as the most important ground for setting aside his claim to the post of lambardar by the District Collector and the Commissioner. They have also concurred that the involvement of the petitioner under Section 323 and 324 confirms his criminal bent of mind.