PRITAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 29.11.1996, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, in a Lambardari case.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that, the District Collector, Sangrur, vide his order dated 14.12.1992, had dismissed the petitioner-Pritam Singh from the post of Lambardar of village Kaulseri, Tehsilar Dhuri, District Sangrur, on the ground, that he had wrongly verified the 'Kurshinama' in the mutation case regarding the inheritance of Jagrup Singh, in which he had omitted the name of widow of Jagrup Singh, with an ulterior motive, for a personal gain in complicity with the other party; and, with a view to cover up his omission and commission, he had blamed the halqa Patwari, thus stating a lie. Before passing his abovesaid order, the District Collector had issued a show cause notice dated 2.11.1992, to Pritam Singh; asking him to explain, as to why he should not be removed from the post of Lambardar, in view of the fact that, he had wrongly verified the 'Kurshinama' on the mutation No. 1865 of village Kaulseri, Tehsil Malerkotla, in which, the name of Harbans Kaur widow of Jagrup Singh was omitted, which had wreaked great loss to the said widow, by colluding with the other party for personal gain. This show cause notice was replied to by Pritam Singh on 12.11.1992; in which, Pritam Singh had stated, that the concerned Patwari had fraudulently obtained his signature on the said mutation-sheet, on the day when the mutations pertaining to village Kaulseri were got decided by him in the Tehsil office Dhuri. He had thus blamed the halqa Patwari Sh. Birbal Dass, for this lapse. A photocopy of the affidavit from Pritam Singh Lambardar attested on 9.7.1991, is available on the Collector's file, which supports his version given in the letter dated 12.11.1992. The District Collector had listened to both Pritam Singh, as well as Birbal Dass Patwari, halqa Sangatpura on 14.12.1992; and consequently, had ordered dismissal of Pritam Singh from the post of Lambardar on 14.12.1992. In his statement, Birbal Dass Patwari had mentioned that Pritam Singh had submitted an affidavit dated 29.7.1991, before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, as per which, he had confessed the attestation of 'Kurshinama' in the said mutation. The Patwari had also produced a photocopy of the affidavit dated 29.7.1991 from Pritam Singh. Aggrieved by Collector's order, Pritam Singh had filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, on 28.12.1992, which was rejected vide order dated 29.11.1996, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala. The present revision petition is directed against this order.

(3.) AT the outset, it may be pointed out, that the Collector's order is vague, non-speaking and is based on the half-baked facts. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) also appears to have rejected the appeal filed by Pritam Singh very suavely and facilely, without properly appreciating the role of Pritam Singh in the entire episode. Rule 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules 1909 deals with "Dismissal of headmen", which reads as follows :-