NABHU Vs. BASHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by Nabhu, petitioner under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 24.11.93 passed by District Collector, Sonepat, vide which respondent No. 1 has been appointed as a Lambardar of village Thirya, tehsil and district Sonepat; and order dated 17.8.94 passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, vide which his appeal has been dismissed.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner holds land in the patti of which Lambardar was to be appointed, whereas the respondent No. 1 owns land in a different patti. He quoted ruling 1992(1) RRR 594 in this context. He further argued that the respondent No. 1 is a defaulter of loan from the Shahzadpur Cooperative Society and hence he could not have been appointed as Lambardar. He further said the Bashir is 65 years old and hence, is unfit to discharge his functions as a Lambardar.

(3.) I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and have studied the case file. Tehsildar Sonepat in his report dated 4.5.88 recommended the appointment of Bashir as Lambardar of this village. SDO (Civil) vide his order dated 11.1.89 asked for certain information and details about the land owned by different candidates. Thereafter, Tehsildar Sonepat vide his report dated 22.1.93 recommended the appointment of Sh. Nabhu, petiitoner as Lambardar. SDO (Civil), after hearing both the parties observed that he had not asked for a fresh report from Tehsildar and did not agree with his report and recommended the appointment of Sh. Bashir as Lambardar. District Collector, Sonepat vide his order dated 24.11.93 appointed Bashir son of Sh. Sultana as a Lambardar of village Thirya. The Collector has considered the relative merits and demerits of both the candidates. He has specifically observed that Bashir has been a sarpanch of this village for 22 years and he owns 46 kanal 8 marla land in this village, whereas Nabhu is a resident of village Balandpur Kheri and he has purchased land in this village. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Bashir is 65 years old and hence is unfit for doing is functions as Lambardar, is not valid, because Nabhu is just one year younger, that is, he is 64 years old. Moreover, Collector has specifically stated that Bashir is healthy. Emphasis has also been laid that Bashir is defaulter of a Cooperative Society. The Commissioner has observed that the 70% population of Haryana remains defaulter. Whereas this observations is not called for, it should be recognised that agriculture is no longer a profession of subsistence; it is now commercial in nature and a farmer is expected to make investments in the form of high quality seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, implements etc. He has also to sink tubewell for irrigation and make improvement in his land. And for these purposes State Govt. has established a large network of cooperative institutions for providing credit support to the farmers. This does not reflect on indebtedness of the farmers, because this finally leads to higher production and higher income. A chronic defaulter would however be a distinct demerit and that has not been proved in this case. The Revenue Officer of the district, particularly District Collector is the best judge to determine the suitability of various candidates for appointment of a Lambardar. Hence the choice of the Collected should not be disturbed unless there is some gross injustice or irregularity committed in the appointment of a lambardar. Thus finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. To be communicated.