JOGINDER PAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is to the orders dated 23.1.2002 (Annexure P-5) and 8.10.2002 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, respectively, whereby respondent No. 4 has been appointed as Lambardar of village Satial, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, and prayer has been made for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner as Lambardar of the village.

(2.) ON the death of Amar Singh Lambardar, father of the petitioner, on 15.11.1995, the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment as Lambardar by the Tehsildar and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. However, before the Collector, the petitioner withdrew his candidature, and his nephew Baljinder Singh (respondent No. 5) was appointed as Lambardar of village Satial vide order dated 7.3.2000 (Annexure P-4). The order passed by the Collector was challenged in appeal by respondent No. 4 Deep Chand on the ground that Baljinder Singh did not own any land in village Satial, therefore, he was not eligible to be appointed as Lambardar of the village. On considering the merits of each candidate, the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, vide order dated 23.1.2002 (Annexure P-5) set aside the order passed by the Collector and ordered the appointment of Deep Chand, respondent No. 4 as Lambardar of the village. The order passed by the Commissioner was challenged in revision before the Financial Commissioner by Joginder Singh petitioner, his nephew Baljinder Singh (respondent No. 5) as well as Dass Ram (respondent No. 6). The challenge made by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner was on the ground that in the appeal before the Commissioner, he was not made a party and the Commissioner had committed a grave error in appointing Deep Chand as Lambardar of the village. After considering the claims of each candidate, the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 8.10.2002 (Annexure P-6) upheld the order passed by the Commissioner. Now the petitioner has filed this petition wherein prayer has been made for quashment of the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner.

(3.) THE short submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had foregone his claim for appointment as Lambardar only in favour of his nephew Baljinder Singh (respondent No. 5). It has been contended that in case Baljinder Singh was not eligible for being appointed as Lambardar of village Satial, then the petitioner ought to have been appointed as such being the son of deceased Lambardar Amar Singh. Another contention made on behalf of the petitioner is that the appeal filed by respondent No. 4 had wrongly been accepted by the Commissioner without looking into the fact that the petitioner being a necessary party had not been impleaded therein by respondent No. 4.