BALJEET SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE post of Lambardar in general category of village Doda, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Muktsar, fell vacant after the death of Balraj Singh. The process for selection and appointment of Lambardar was started with a proclamation, which attracted 11 candidates, but ultimately only 3 candidates remained in the contest, namely, the petitioner, respondent No. 4 and one Angrej Singh. After Angrej Singh withdrew his application, the Collector, after considering the inter -se merits of the remaining two candidates, appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar vide his order dated 01.03.2007. The petitioner's appeal before the Commissioner was allowed on 29.11.2007 but the Financial Commissioner reversed the order of the Commissioner and restored the order of the Collector vide order dated 24.03.2009. The petitioner has, thus, challenged order dated 01.03.2007 passed by the Collector and dated 24.03.2009 passed by the Financial Commissioner, inter alia, on the ground that the deceased Balraj Singh was the Lambardar of Patti Moola of village Doda. There are two other Lambardars of the other Pattis of the village but respondent No. 4, who resides in Patti Bamu and owns land in Patti Bamu, is not entitled to be appointed as Lambardar of Patti Moola. It is also submitted that the petitioner belongs to the family of the deceased Lambardar, whereas respondent No. 4 is neither related to the deceased Lambardar and is a youngman of 27 years. In reply, counsel for respondent No. 4 has submitted that in the case of appointment of Lambardar, the choice of the Collector is not to be interfered with until and unless there is some perversity in his order which is conspicuous by its absence in the present case and the respondent No. 4 has been considered to be more meritorious than the petitioner being a youngman of 27 years of age, matriculate, having 12 -1/2 acres of land and has been recommended by both the Naib Tehsildar, Doda and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gidderbaha. In respect of the issue of not having the land in Patti Moola, it is submitted that there is no requirement of law about the possession of land in the Patti concerned because the word used in the Punjab Land Revenue Rules (as applicable to Punjab) [hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"] is "estate" which is not confined to the Patti and is identical to a village.

(2.) I have heard both counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) A perusal of Rule 15(b) of the Rules indicates that it only refers to the property in the estate possessed by the candidate to secure the recovery of land revenue.