AVTAR SINGH Vs. JASWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISTRICT Collector, Patiala appointed, respondent Jaswinder Singh as Lambardar of village Kuthakheri, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala vide order dated 29.09.04 with the following observations :

(2.) THE Divisional Commissioner, Patiala dismissed the petitioner's appeal vide impugned order dated 21.01.2005. The counsel for the petitioner has given the following arguments to assail these concurrent orders of Collector and Commissioner : (i) That there was a Panchayat resolution dated 10.05.2003 supporting the petitioner's candidature. (ii) That he is also matriculate like Jaswinder Singh. (iii) That more than 100 persons including ex-sarpanches supported him. Page 92 of the Collector's file contains majornama (recommendations from the people/respectables of the village) in the petitioner's favour which is signed by two ex-sarpanches and three lambardars. (Perusal of this page in Collector's file shows that there were just about 12-15 persons who signed it on the first page but along with the revision petition, the petitioner has attached a copy of this majornama which contains three additional pages, carrying signatures of many more persons, about another 100 persons. But, these additional pages are not part of the Collector's file). (iv) Petitioner owns 40 bighas of and whereas the respondent owns 22 bighas. (v) FIR was registered against the respondent in the year 2004 under sections 353, 332, 186, 294 and 34 IPC.

(3.) AFTER conclusion of the arguments opportunity of rebuttal was given to the petitioner's counsel. The above facts given by the respondent are borne out by the record. Therefore, theses remain unrebutted. In concluding remarks, the petitioner's counsel said that respondent should be ignored because he had become member of Panchayat Samiti, Ghanaur and such a person could not do justice to the assignment of nambardari. He quoted an observation of Sh. C.D. Cheema, Financial Commissioner in ROR No. 562/91-92 in which it is said that the post of lambardar and Sarpanch should not be combined in one person as far as possible. The counsel for the respondent rebutted that his term as member of Panchayat Samiti already expired on 09.06.2007.