JAGDISH SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 13.12.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, whereby the appeal preferred by respondent No.4-Jasvir Singh challenging the order dated 16.04.2015 (Annexure P-2) passed by Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, whereby the case was remanded back to the District Collector for reconsideration by him on appointment of Jasvir Singh as Lambardar of Village Khandoor, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, has been accepted setting aside the order dated 16.04.2015 (Annexure P-2) passed by Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Financial Commissioner could not have entertained the appeal which has been preferred by respondent No.4-Jasvir Singh as the same was not maintainable. He contends that the said appeal being not maintainable, the Financial Commissioner could not have decided the same but this contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the powers conferred upon the Financial Commissioner under Section 118 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.

(3.) On merit, it is asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the comparative merit of the candidates have not been considered by the District Collector, Ludhiana, while appointing respondent No.4-Jasvir Singh as the Lambardar of the village. He contends that the said respondent has been appointed merely on the ground that he is 32 years of age and 10+2 pass, whereas the petitioner is 43 years of age and 7th pass. The hereditary claim of the petitioner has not been considered as he had remained the Sarbarah Lambardar and is the son of the deceased Lambardar. Assertion has also been made and pressed upon by the counsel for the petitioner on Annexures P-4 and P-5, wherein it is asserted that respondent No.4-Jasvir Singh has compromised the matter, wherein he has stated that because of his household condition and personal reasons, he is unable to perform the duties of Lambardar. It is asserted by the counsel, on the basis of the said documents, that respondent No.4 is not interested in taking up the responsibility of the Lambardar and has himself surrendered his claim by asserting therein that he has no objection to the appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar. He contends that an unwilling person should not be appointed as Lambardar. Prayer has thus been made for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.12.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Financial Commissioner.