KANWAR LAL @ KAMAL Vs. BABU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISTRICT Collector, Faridabad vide his order dated 22.4.1994 dismissed Babu Ram from the post of Lambardar of village Baghola, District Faridabad under Rule 16(ii)(f) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. Aggrieved by the order of the District Collector, Babu Ram filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon who vide his order dated 8.9.1994 accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Collector dismissing Babu Ram, Lambardar. Hence the present appeal.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant argued that the District Collector dismissed Babu Ram as Lambardar vide his order dated 22.4.1994 by a detailed and well reasoned order because it was clear that the Lambardar was in illegal possession of the Panchayat land; a case was filed against him for his dispossession and a fine was also imposed and that this fine was not deposited by Babu Ram; he however, deposited Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 200/- with the Gram Panchayat only after the complaint was made against him by the appellant; that the detailed enquiry was conducted by the Tehsildar Palwal and it was clear from the report that Babu Ram Lambardar was in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat land and that he was still occupying the Panchayat land. Moreover, it was also pleaded that Babu Ram Lambardar had attested a Will of the deceased Sh. Daya Kishan in his life time but with an ulterior motive he gave the statement in the Court to the contrary. Thus, it was proved that he was incompetent and neglected to discharge his duties. The learned Commissioner, however, has accepted the appeal without considering all the facts. He has given no reason as to why provision of Rule 16(ii)(f) was not applicable in this case when it was clear that charges against the Lambardar had been fully proved. The allegations in the complaint are supported by the documentary evidence and the Commissioner's order deserved to be set aside.

(3.) I have studied the case file and have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. An application was moved by Sh. Kanwar Lal, appellant before the Deputy Commissioner (Collector) Faridabad on 13.6.1993 alleging that Babu Ram Lambardar had given false evidence pertaining to the Will of one Daya Kishan deceased; Babu Ram had attested the Will of Daya Kishan, which was executed by him during his life time. After his death when a dispute arose and Babu Ram, Lambardar was summoned on 2.4.1993 by the Court he intentionally and deliberately pleaded ignorance about the registered Will in itself. It was also alleged that Babu Ram was in illegal and unauthorised possession of Panchayat land measuring 44 kanals 12 marlas land situated in village Baghola. His ejectment was ordered first in 1977 and in 1988 a fine of Rs. 5000/- was imposed by the Assistant Collector for taking undue advantage by retaining the Panchayat land in his unauthorised possession. His appeal was also dismissed by the District Collector on 4.10.1988 and appeal to the Commissioner was dismissed on 12.3.1993. Thus, the orders of the Assistant Collector, Collector and Commissioner have become final. Similarly, he was also in illegal possession of Khasra No. 345 measuring 14 marlas and his ejectment has also been ordered by the Assistant Collector and he was imposed a fine of Rs. 200/- and that no appeal had been preferred against this order. The applicant prayed that the Lambardar Babu Ram may be dismissed. The complainant enclosed copies of the relevant orders passed by the various Revenue Officers pertaining to the ejectment from the Panchayat land and imposition of fine. The Lambardar submitted his reply to the complaint. After hearing the Lambardar, the Collector ordered Tehsildar Palwal to conduct a detailed enquiry and send his report. Tehsildar submitted his report that Babu Ram was in illegal possession of Panchayat land measuring 44 kanals 12 marlas and 14 marlas and that the Lambardar had deposited fines of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 200/- respectively. He also stated that Sh. Babu Ram had indeed attested the Will of Sh. Daya Kishan and that both the charges in the complaint were proved against Babu Ram Lambardar. The District Collector again heard him and vide his order dated 22.4.1994 came to the conclusion that allegation that he had been in illegal possession of the Panchayat land and was still in illegal possession of the Panchayat land and that he deposited fines of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 200/- imposed by the Assistant Collector in two cases only after the complaint was moved against him. The Collector also came to the conclusion that the second charge pertaining to attestation of the Will was also proved against him and finding the charges serious, he ordered his dismissal as Lambardar under Rule 16(ii)(f). The Commissioner's orders dated 8.9.1994 on the other hand are very cryptic. He agreed with the assertion of the learned counsel before him that even if the charges were correct against the Lambardar he should not be dismissed under Rule 16(ii)(f). These charges are quite serious. The Lambardar continues to be in illegal possession of the Panchayat land and fines of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 200/- were imposed on him by the Assistant Collector on 29.2.1988. The appeals before the Collector and the Commissioner were dismissed on 4.10.1988 and 12.3.1993 respectively. No appeal was filed against the inposition of fine of Rs. 200/- at all. He deposited this fine with the Gram Panchayat on 17.7.1993 only after a complaint to this effect was filed before the District Collector. His complaint pleading ignorance in the Court about the registered Will which had been attested by him is also a serious matter. I do not understand how the Commissioner has come to the conclusion that these charges were not sufficient for his dismissal. A Lambardar is expected to perform a large number of duties. He has to collect by due date the amount of land revenue and all sums recoverable as tend revenue; collect the rents and other income from the common land; he is expected to report to Tehsildar all encroachments on roads including village roads or Govt. wastelands, nazool property situated within the boundary of the estate; assist all Govt. Officers in their public duties and so on. The respondent on the other hand continues to be in illegal possession of the Panchayat land; and the Govt. Officers had to move applications for his ejectment. If a Lambardar is himself in illegal possession of the Panchayat land, one cannot expect him to get the other encroachments from Panchayat land or Govt. land removed. I, therefore, do not agree with the Commissioner at all that these charges even if they are proved are not sufficient for his removal from the post of Lambardar. During arguments before me also, these allegations have not seen controverted. The learned counsel has only stated that he was ready to surrender the Panchayat land. It is expected that the concerned authorities will take measures for ejectment of the respondent No. 1 from the Panchayat land. The learned counsel for the respondent has only taken the plea that the complainant has no locus standi in this case and he has cited 1994 PLJ 3 and 1988 PLJ 379. I have studied these rulings. These pertain to the Gram Panchayat Act and whether a complainant is to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before revoking order of suspension. Evidently, these authorities are not applicable in this case. Keeping in view the facts of the case, I accept the appeal and set aside the order dated 8.9.1994 passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division. To be communicated. Appeal accepted.