VIJAY KUMAR RANA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the appointment of Sukhdev Singh son of Gurdas Singh, respondent No.4, as a Lambardar of Village Rajpur, Post Office Bhangala, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, by the District Collector, Hoshiarpur, vide order dtd. 12/3/2015 (Annexure P-1), appeal against which preferred by him before the Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, stands dismissed vide order dtd. 14/12/2016 (Annexure P-3) and the order of Financial Commissioner (Appeal II), Punjab-respondent No.2, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed on 27/7/2017 (Annexure P-4).

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the only ground which has weighed with the authorities for giving preference to respondent No.4 over and above the petitioner is the ownership of more land in comparison to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is an ex-serviceman as he has retired as Naib Subedar. He remained sarbrah Lambardar for a period of 10 years as his father was the Lambardar and was not keeping good health. He further contends that the petitioner has a preferential hereditary right over the others in the light of Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Even no weightage has been given to the experience of the petitioner. That apart, counsel contends that respondent No.4 is running a shop of spare parts in the name and style of 'Ramgarhia Combine Spare parts' at Village Bhangala whereas the Lambardari is of village Rajpur. He further states that respondent No.4 is not available in the village where he has to perform the duties of a Lambardar. Assertion has also been made that said respondent has been in custody for a period of almost one month in a criminal complaint registered under the SC and ST Act. He submits that with these dis-qualifications attached with respondent No.4, his candidature could not have been accepted by the Collector and the other authorities and, thus, the impugned orders cannot sustain and deserve to be set-aside.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the records of the case.