SUKHDEV SINGH, LAMBARDAR Vs. ISHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present is an appeal under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 29.11.1996 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, in the lambardari case, as per which, he had set aside the appointment of the appellant-Sukhdev Singh, ordered by the District Collector, Sangrur, as per his order dated 24.1.1990.

(2.) TO fill up the vacancy of the lambardar in Village Gujjran, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur, caused with the death of Bachan Singh, Lambardar, on 8.12.1989, the Tehsildar, Sunam, had recommended the name of the appellant- Sukhdev Singh, for his appointment as Lambardar in preference to Ishar Singh, the other contestant, which was also endorsed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Sunam; and, while agreeing with these recommendations, and after hearing both the contestants, the District Collector, Sangrur, had ordered the appointment of the appellant-Sukhdev Singh as Lambardar, of village Gujjran, as per his order dated 24.1.1990, in the light of the provisions contained under Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. As revealed from the record, Ishar Singh is the son of the previous lambardar, Bachan Singh; has studied upto 6th Class; and, has the experience of working as "Sarbrah" lambardar. His land holding is almost equal to the other candidate-Sukhdev Singh, who has studied upto M.A. Part 1; is comparatively younger in age, and enjoys a good reputation in the village community, as a good social worker. Aggrieved by the Collector's order, Ishar Singh had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, who had accepted the same, as per his order dated 29.11.1996 and had remanded the case to the District Collector, "for affording fresh opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence, and, as well as, to examine veracity of the evidence led by both the parties". Aggrieved by this order, Sukhdev Singh has filed the present appeal, on the grounds, stated in the appeal dated 23.12.1996.

(3.) IN the instant case, the District Collector, Sangrur, had ordered the appointment of the appellant-Sukhdev Singh as lambardar, alter considering the comparative merits and demerits of both the contestants. Both the Tehsildar, Sunam, as well as the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Sunam, had concurrently recommended the appointment of the appellant in view of his outstanding merits, as compared to his rival, Ishar Singh. In appreciation of the evidence available on the record, the District Collector had passed a very appropriate order, by appointing Shri Sukhdev Singh as lambardar. His order is well- reasoned, logical and speaking one; and, no perversity of any sort is discernible in his order. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division. Patiala, had accepted the appeal filed by Ishar Singh on flimsy grounds, and there was no justification to set aside the order passed by the District Collector, and to remand the case for fresh decision; as the District Collector, had considered all the relevant factors, as provided under Rule 15 of the Rules, ibid, while ordering the appointment of the appellant, as lambardar. The order of the learned Commissioner had unnecessarily and unjustifiably, re-opened the well- settled issue, by rather taking perverse view of the facts available on the record, and by introducing extraneous factors, on the basis of which he had directed the District Collector to reconsider the case, on remand.