JAGIR SINGH Vs. ARJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against the order dated 5.9.1995 passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and the order dated 25.11.1993 passed by the District Collector, Ferozepur.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that consequent upon the death of Sh. Arjan Singh, son of Narain Singh, Lambardar, the process of filling up the resultant vacancy was started afresh. A proclamation was made in the village. Initially as many as 28 candidates submitted their applications but out of them only six candidates pursued their case. Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Fazilka, unanimously recommended the name of Sh. Jagdip Singh, son of Nihal Singh for appointment as Lambardar, to the District Collector, Ferozepur. After considering the qualifications and merits of the candidates, District Collector, Ferozepur, appointed Sh. Arjan Singh as Lambardar. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Collector, petitioner and others filed three connected appeals before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, who rejected all the three appeals with the following observations :-

(3.) I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties. Different factors have weighed in the minds of the Presiding Officers of the lower courts and various views have been taken in the matter. Assistant Collector Ist grade has recommended the name of Jagdeep Singh, son of Nihal Singh because he has plenty of property, sufficiently educated and his name was recommended by lower revenue officers. The District Collector has ignored the name of Jagdeep Singh because he is only 5th class pass. The Collector recommended the name of Arjan Singh primarily for the reason that he is 10th class pass and is member of the Panchayat for the last 14 years. The Commissioner has agreed with the recommendation of the Collector. The Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, in his findings, as mentioned in para 2 above, has himself admitted that the petitioner is having an edge over the respondent No. 1 but he agreed with the District Collector that the petitioner can hardly read and write. From the record, I find that the petitioner has written Punjabi. in a very good manner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner cannot read or write Punjabi. Further, Sh. Arjan Singh, respondent No. 1 is in unauthorised possession of government land as is clear from the Jamabandi for the year 1988-89 of Village Singhewala, which is available in the file. This fact was ignored both by the Collector and the Commissioner. I myself asked the respondent No. 1 in the open court whether he is in occupation of government land. The respondent No. 1 admitted the possession of government land of his brother whereas in revenue record he himself is recorded as an unauthorised occupant of government land alongwith his brother. Therefore, according to the law settled that when the order of Collector or Commissioner proved to be illegal or perverse, then the Financial Commissioner can interfere in such type of cases. The case in hand is also of such type where the learned Collector and learned Commissioner has passed an illegal order by appointing respondent No. 1 as Lambardar of Village Singhewala. To my opinion, petitioner was having better claim than respondent No. 1 and the petitioner Jagir Singh was to be appointed as Lambardar of Village Singhewala in place of Arjan Singh, respondent No. 1. Therefore, I accept the revision petition, set aside both the orders of Collector and Commissioner and appoint Jagir Singh as Lambardar of Village Singhewala, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur. Announced.