PALAK RAM LAMBARDAR Vs. STATE OF H.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the petitioner against the orders of the Commissioner, Shimla division dated 5.9.2007 in appeal no. 262/2004.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the Tehsildar cum -Sub -Registrar, Kasauli submitted a report dated 29.9.1999 to the Deputy Commissioner, Solan stating therein that the appellant Sh. Palak Ram, Lambardar of Kasauli Circle stood as an identifier of the seller Sh. Niranjan Singh in a sale deed executed on 24.5.1999. It was further stated that the owner of the land that was sold by way of the sale deed ibid, made a representation before the Sub -Registrar, Kasauli on 14.9.1999 stating therein that he had never executed the sale deep in respect of the land owned by him and that the sale deed in question has been executed by way of impersonation. The Collector, Solan District took cognizance of the report submitted by the Tehsildar, Kasauli and issued a show cause notice to the present appellant date 1.10.1999. The Collector thereafter proceeded with case and removed the appellant Sh. Palak Ram from the post of Lambardar of Bhoj Kasauli vide order dated 15.6.2004. Against this order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Shimla division on the grounds that the Collector had not taken into consideration the fact that there was not even a single complaint against him throughout his career of 34 years as Lambardar, that the bonafide mistake of the appellant was taken so seriously that he had been removed from the post of the Lambardar and that the Collector could not appreciate that the findings against the appellant had been recorded on the basis of flimsy grounds. After hearing the parties, the Commissioner has dismissed the appeal vide order dated 5.9.2007. Hence, this second appeal has been filed before this court.

(3.) IN reply, the learned Dy. D.A. (Revenue) for State has argued that since Sh. Palak Ram is working for 34 years. He should be more careful. He submitted that in the instant case he was identifying the seller but he has admitted before the Deputy Commissioner that he did not know the seller.