SUKHCHAIN SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER, FEROZEPUR DIVIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 22.12.2005 of Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of this case are that Gurbax Singh Lambardar of Village Burj Sidhawn died on 29.1.2004 and accordingly action was initiated for the appointment of new Lambardar. After mushtari munadi seven applications were received. However, only two candidates namely Sukhchain Singh, the present petitioner and Amandeep Singh present respondent No. 3 appeared before the District Collector, who vide his order dated 30.9.2004 appointed the respondent No. 3 Amandeep Singh as Lambardar of Village Burj Sidhwan. Aggrieved Sukhchain Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur which was dismissed on 22.12.2005. Hence the present revision petition.

(3.) AFTER hearing counsel for both the parties and carefully going through the orders as well as record of the lower courts, I am of the considered view that though there is no bar on the appointment of Government employee as Lambardar, in the present case the respondent is not obviously the right choice for the appointment of Lambardar because he is occupying a transferable government post and can be transferred at any time from the village which will cause inconvenience to the residents of village and the Revenue Officers to whom he is supposed to assist as Lambardar. Not only this, his duty is from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on all working days and as such he cannot discharge his duties as Lambardar during this period. On the other hand petitioner is young man of 31 years and energetic and more educated and as stated by him is not employed in any private firm at present and in merit has edge over the respondent. The respondent has obviously been given the benefit of hereditary claim whereas it is the settled law that the hereditary claim is to be given weightage only when both the candidates are equal in merit. It has been held by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bhag Singh v. Financial Commissioner Revenue, Haryana, 2001(1) RCR(Civil) 9 (P&H) (DB) that office of the Lambardar is not a hereditary office and son of a Lambardar shall not be automatically be appointed as Lambardar in place of his father. Preference on hereditary claim can only be given when other merits of the contesting candidate are found to be equal. In the instant case the petitioner is patently having an edge over the respondent in merit and as such the Collector has wrongly and illegally given the benefit of hereditary claim to the respondent. The respondent has not been able to give any proof that he worked as Sarabrah Lambardar during the life time of his father. The Lambardari is an office and nor a reward or gift, nor it could be regarded as mere honour or decoration. The first and foremost consideration which should prevail in making the appointment of a Lambardar, is to select a person who could be available readily to discharge the duties assigned to the office of Lambardar efficiently and effectively. In the present case, the petitioner is patently having an edge over the respondent. I, therefore, accept the revision petition and set aside the orders dated 30.9.2004 of Collector and orders dated 22.12.2005 of Commissioner and appoint the petitioner Sukhchain Singh as Lambardar of Village Burj Sidhwsan, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar. Both the parties be informed through their counsel. Petition allowed.