KARAM SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Collector, Kurukshetra, appointed respondent no.4, Suresh Pal son of Ajmer Singh, as lambardar of Village Devidaspura, rejecting the claim of Karam Singh petitioner and four others vide order dated 11.1.2005, Annexure P1. Petitioner filed appeal against that order which was accepted by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, ordering his substitution in place of respondent no.4 as lambardar. Later on, in a revision filed by the latter, the Financial Commissioner set aside the order of the Commissioner and restored that of the Collector.

(2.) In this petition, the petitioner has impugned the said order of the Financial Commissioner, Annexure P3. A perusal of the order Annexure P1, shows that the Collector preferred respondent no.4 over the petitioner, taking into consideration his higher academic qualifications and the facts that he owned property worth Rs.6 lacs and had also been doing social work, besides helping the administration in the Family Planning work. His higher academic qualifications, as recorded in Annexure P1, were that he was matriculate and also possessed a Certificate of Industrial Training from the Ministry of Labour in the Government of India. The petitioner, on the other hand, has studied, only upto 8th.

(3.) The Commissioner found the petitioner to be more suitable, noticing that he owned a plot, a house and 5 acres of land, besides having worked as Sarbarah lambardar. He also found that respondent no.4 had held a "BPL" ration card upto 27.11.2003. Since, while applying for the office of Lambardar, he had given the value of his property as 6 lacs, the Commissioner dubbed him as a liar and a cheat. The Commissioner, in our view, was not justified in arriving at this conclusion. Admittedly, respondent no.4 had ceased to be a BPL ration card holder much prior to the filing of application for the office of Lambardar. In 1994 Punjab Law Journal 473 Inderaj vs. Financial Commissioner and others, the Apex Court held that it is the date on which a person is appointed as Lambardar, which is relevant, for such purposes. Respondent no.4 was appointed on 11.1.2005 and on that date, he was no more a holder of BPL ration card. The fact that the property held by the petitioner was more than the property of respondent no.4 was also not a sufficient ground.