BALJIT SINGH Vs. JALOUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above mentioned are the two appeals under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 24.7.1996, passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, in a lambardari case. As, in these two appeals, the order impugned is the same and these two appeals are inter-connected, so, the present order will dispose of these cases, and a copy of this order shall be placed on each file.

(2.) THE facts of this case are, that, the District Collector, Muktsar, vide his order dated 13.12.1995, had ordered the appointment of the appellant- Baljit Singh as Lambardar of village Nandgarh, in preference to the respondent-Jalour Singh and Harkrishan Singh, while filling up the vacancy of lambardar in village Nandgarh, caused with the death of previous lambardar Mehar Singh. Earlier, the village Nandgarh, Tehsil Muktsar, was a part of the Faridkot District; and, after the creation of a new District Muktsar, this village is now part of the Muktsar District. Aggrieved by the Collector's order dated 13.12.1995, Jalour Singh and Harkrishan Singh had filed two different appeals before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur; who, by clubbing these appeals together, had disposed them of vide his order dated 24.7.1996, as per which, these appeals were accepted, the Collector's order was set aside and the cases were remanded to the District Collector, Muktsar, for deciding these cases afresh. The operative part of the Commissioner's order reads as follows :- "The learned District Collector did not make comparison of the relative merits and demerits of the contesting candidates. All the candidates stand almost on equal footing so far age and land-holding is concerned, but there is a clear difference in their educational qualifications and other factors which were not considered by the learned Distt. Collector. The allegation that the respondent was a defaulter of the Bank needs to be probed into and its out- come is to be kept in view while deciding the matter. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the District Collector, Muktsar, for fresh decision on merit in view of the above observations." Aggrieved by the above order, the present two appeals have been filed by Baljit Singh on the grounds stated in the appeals dated 4.2.1997.

(3.) AFTER careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, I am of the view, that, the present appeals have no merit and the same deserve to be rejected. As per the impugned order, the learned Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, had only remanded the cases to the District Collector, Muktsar, as he was not satisfied with the selection made by the District Collector, as, in his opinion the comparative merits of the three contesting candidates had not been properly weighed and taken into consideration, while ordering appointment. There is nothing illegal or irregular in the impugned order, because, the appellant will get an opportunity afresh to present his case before the District Collector and to establish his right. The learned Commissioner was perfectly within his right and jurisdiction, while passing the impugned order, and there are no grounds to set aside the same, on the pleadings advanced on behalf of the petitioner- Baljit Singh. I agree with the findings given by the learned Commissioner; as, I am convinced, that, there is a scope for reappraisal of the personal merits of all the three candidates. In view of the above, the present appeals are dismissed. Appelas dismissed.