KULDIP SINGH Vs. SARABJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 4.3.1996, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, in a Lambardari case.

(2.) THE relevant facts of this case are, that, with a view to fill up the vacancy of Lambardar in Village Boonga, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur, caused with the death of the previous Lambardar Harbachan Singh, the District Collector, Sangrur, had ordered the appointment of Kuldip Singh son of Balkar Singh, as Lambardar of Village Boonga, vide his order dated 25.9.1995. In response to the proclamation made in the Village for inviting applications for the post of Lambardar from the desirous candidates, four persons had applied for the post, out of which, only Sarabjit Singh belonged to Village Boonga, and, the remaining three candidates namely Kuldip Singh, Amarjit Singh and Paramjit Singh belonged to the neighbouring Village Mandian. As Amarjit Singh and Paramjit Singh had dropped out, the District Collector, after considering the comparative merits of Sarabjit Singh and Kuldip Singh had preferred Kuldip Singh to Sarabjit Singh, mainly on the ground that, Sarabjit Singh being in Government service would not be available to the village community. The Collector had noticed that Kuldip Singh was aged 30 years; had studied upto middle and owned 11 Bighas and 15 Biswas of land; Sarabjit Singh owned 4 bighas and 6 Biswas of land; was a Graduate; working as teacher in a Government School and his father was a Sarpanch in the village. Against the Collector's order, Sarabjit Singh had filed an appeal, which was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, vide his order dated 4.3.1996, had set aside the Collector's order and had directed that Sarabjit Singh be appointed as Lambardar. Aggrieved by this order, Kuldip Singh has filed the present revision petition dated 15.5.1996, on the grounds stated in the petition. The learned counsel for both the sides have been heard. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and after thorough perusal of the record, I am of the view, that, the present revision petition has no merit and the same deserves to be rejected. It is a settled proposition of law, that the Collector's choice in the matter of appointment of a village Lambardar is not to be disturbed, unless, the Collector's order is perverse or illegal. In the instant case, the Collector had ordered the appointment of Kuldip Singh as Lambardar, who did not belong to the village, to which the Lambardari belongs to. It has clearly been admitted; and, has also been stated by Kuldip Singh in his application dated 7.1.1994, that he is resident of village Mundian; whereas, the Lambardari belongs to village Boonga. Sarabjit Singh belongs to village Boonga; and, except the extant of land, has a much better merit than Kuldip Singh. However, the Collector had preferred Kuldip Singh to Sarabjit Singh, by rejecting the claim of Sarabjit Singh, on the ground, that, he was a Government servant; and, in this way, the District Collector had taken perverse view of the facts of the case and had passed an illegal order.

(3.) THE learned Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly set aside the appointment of Kuldip Singh and had rightly directed for the appointment of Sarabjit Singh, because being a Government servant, is not a disqualification for appointment as Lambardar, provided otherwise, he is eligible and suitable for the said post. So far as the eligibility and suitability or Sarabjit Singh for the post is concerned, his personal merits speak volumes for it. Moreover, as no other candidate belongs to Village Boonga, so, no other better alternative is available; and, Sarabjit Singh is the only choice - Hobson's one.