MUNSHI RAM Vs. SHAKTI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Attar Singh, Financial Commissioner (Rev. and A.) - â„¢Shri Munshi Ram, petitioner has challenged the proprietary and legality of the orders passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division in Revenue Appeal No. 19/87, dated 19 -1 -1988. By virtue of the impugned order he maintained the orders and appointment of Shri Shakti Chand, respondent as a Lambar -dar, passed by the District Collector on 30 -12 -1986 and dismissed the appeal filed before him by Munshi Ram, petitioner challenging the appointment of Shakti Chand as Lambardar. Since the orders of the Collector has been confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner in appeal, therefore, second appeal under the H. P. Land Revenue Act is not maintainable accordingly, 2nd appeal is treated as revision and decided accordingly.

(2.) I have heard Shri Munshi Ram, petitioner and perused the court record. It has been contended by the petitioner Shri Munshi Ram that he is Pradhan of Gram Panchayat of Kuthera since 1977 and remained member of Block Samiti, Hamirpur, besides Director of Land Mortgage Bank, Director of Marketting Federation, vice -President, State Co -operative Bank and President of Co -operative Society of Kuthera. His three sons are serving in Army and his father had also served in the Indian Army. It has been stated before me that the petitioner has comparatively better claim than the respondent Sh Shakti Chand and the learned Divisional Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have committed irregularity by over looking his case for the post of Lambardar The perusal of the orders of the learned Divisional Commissioner goes to show that he has discussed all the merits of both the parties and after considering all the facts and arguments made before him by the parties he upheld the order of District Collector whereby Sh. Shakti Chand, respondent was appointed as Lambardar. His appointment as Lambardar was made by the District Collector, Hamirpur after considering the facts that he being a son of Lambardar having 43 -3 Kanal of land besides being served as Sarbra Lambardar and educated upto metric, possessing sound physic while in comparison, the present petitioner have much meagre land and he being Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Director of Mortgage Bank/Marketting Federation and Member of Block Samiti besides vice -President of Co -operative Society could hardly devote time to function as Lambardar satisfactorily. Under the Land Revenue Administration it is essential for a Lambardar to attend visits of the Revenue Officers in the Circle, to collect land revenue in time and to attend other multifarious duties No doubt the personal influence of petitioner in the area is undisputed in view of the fact that he is Pradhan, Director of Mortgage Bank/Marketting Federation, member of Block Samiti and vice President of Co -operative Society but question is that whether he could find time to collect land revenue m time and pursue case of defaulter and his service could be available to the field Revenue Agency. All these aspects were kept in view by the District Collector and has thus choosen Shri Shakti, respondent to be the person for appointment as Lambardar whose order were upheld in appeal Since the petitioner could not point out any material defect in the order of learned Divisional Commissioner and the Collector, the healthy rule is that the choice of Collector in the selection of Lambardar should be respected. A person appointed as Lambardar should1 be trustworthy besides educated, having good character, ability, influential in the locality, sincere to his duties and who could maintain the dignity of the office of Lambardar. I find that the petitioner could not point out any irregularity or illegality in the orders passed by the two officers below, therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Divisional Commissioner and the Collector. In result this revision petition which is devoid of force fails, and the same is rejected. Revision rejected.