PRITAM SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, APPEALS-I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment of the Learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.5382 of 2012 on 08.11.2012 whereby the order dated 10.06.2008, appointing respondent No.4, Harpal Singh as Lambardar was upheld and the order of the Financial Commissioner to decide the matter afresh, after considering the claims of the rival candidates, was set aside.

(2.) THE facts of the case go on to show that the dispute pertains to the appointment of Lambardar of the Village Kaonke Tehsil & District Amritsar, which fell vacant on account of death of earlier Lambardar, Gurmukh Singh. Initially, on 10.06.2008, Harpal Singh, being the only candidate, was appointed by the Collector. However, the appellant -Pritam Singh filed review application on 13.07.2010 that the appointment of respondent No.4 was done at his back and proper munadi was not done due to which only one application of Harpal Singh was received and therefore, he was wrongly appointed. The said review application was allowed by the Collector on 19.08.2010 (Annexure P2) and the appellant -Pritam Singh was appointed in place of respondent No.4. An appeal was preferred by the said respondent which was allowed by the Commissioner on 09.02.2012 (Annexure P5) on the ground that the Collector was not competent to review his order. The present appellant had kept quite for more than 30 years inspite of the fact that his father, Gurmukh Singh had died on 06.08.1977, without getting the post filled. The appeal filed by the present appellant before the Financial Commissioner was partly allowed on account of the fact that the merits of the two candidates had not been directly considered. Relevant portion of the order dated 09.02.2012 reads as under:

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant has vehemently contended that the reasoning given by the Learned Single Judge is against the provisions of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for short, the 'Act'), since appointment of Lambardar is made under the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1909. Accordingly, reference was made to Section 15 of the Act to contend that the Collector being Revenue Officer, is empowered under the Act and there was specific provision for review.