JHALMAN Vs. NARANJAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition has been filed under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 15.1.2003 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar, and the order dated 6.6.2002 of the District Collector, Jalandhar.

(2.) THE brief facts are that proceedings to fill up the post of Harijan Lambardar of village Khanpur, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar were initiated and in response to the proclamation in the village, 4 persons applied. The Naib-Tehsildar and the Tehsildar, after verification of antecedents of the candidates and on the basis of comparative merits, recommended the name of Naranjan Dass. The Collector appointed Naranjan Dass as lambardar vide his order dated 29.12.1999. On appeal by the petitioner, the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar for fresh order. The Collector, on remand, again appointed Naranjan Dass vide his order dated 6.6.2002. The appeal against this order by Jhalman Dass was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar vide impugned order dated 15.1.2003, upholding the appointment of Naranjan Dass. Hence, the present revision petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the name of respondent was duly recommended by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and his appointment was twice made by the Collector and the same has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). As far as the question of bricks is concerned, the counsel has pointed out that the bricks were purchased for civil work in the year 1995 and the assessment was made in the year 1998. The counsel argued that due to rainy season, bricks could not be utilized in time and the village people took away the bricks one by one. Since he was Sarpanch of the village, he was supposed to take care of the bricks. Therefore, he made good the loss though he was not responsible for this pilferage. This does not mean, according to the learned counsel, that the respondent has misappropriated the bricks and used for his own purpose. As far as the question of allotment of land to his brother is concerned, the counsel has pointed out that there was a decision of the Gram Panchayat, to which the petitioner is also a party that 5 Marlas of land should be given to the houseless Harijan families. His brother was found eligible under this proposal and accordingly, he was given 5 marlas land for construction of his house alongwith others. Accordingly, the respondent has done nothing out of the way to allot land unduly to his brother. The counsel has, therefore, pointed out that none of the allegation is proved. In view of the order of the Collector who has final authority for the appointment of lambardar, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed.