Achhar Singh vs Tarseem Lal

C. D. Cheema, FC.

The present revision filed under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 is directed against the order of Commissioner (A). Jalandhar Division dated 13.11.1990 vide which the Commissioner accepted the appeal of Tarsem Lal and appointed him as lambardar of Village Torowal.

Briefly the facts of this case are that on the death of Ram Chand, Harijan Lambardar, on 25.8.1986 the vacancy was to be filled up in the village Torowal, Tehsil Balachaur, District Hoshiarpur, in response to proclamation, five candidates namely, Tarsem Lal son of Jhandu Ram, Krishan Lal son of Amri Ram, Harjit Singh son of Diwan Singh Fattu son of Baru and Achhar Singh son of Rawl submitted their applications. Out of these only three candidates namely Achhar Singh, Fattu Ram and] Tarsem Lal contested their claims before the Collector, Hoshiarpur, Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar Balachaur had recommended the name of Tarsem Lal whereas S.D.O. (C), Balachaur recommended the name of Achhar Singh. The Collector, Hoshiarpur, however, did not find any candidate fir for being appointed as Harijan Lambardar and ordered on 8.9.1989 that Tehsildar, Balachaur will invite fresh applications and process them on merit. Aggrieved by this, Tarsem Lal filed appeal before the Commissioner(A), Jalandhar Division on the main ground that he was the contesting candidate and had not Withdrawn at any stage and he is efficient enough to perform the arduous duties of a lambardar. The Commissioner(A), Jalandhar Division accepted the appeal vide order dated 13.11.1990 and appointed Tarsem Lal as lambardar of the village. Aggrieved by this, present revision petition has been filed by Achhar Singh before this court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the S.D.O(C) recommended the name of the petitioner. The only point taken against the petitioner the Commissioner was that no appeal had been filed against the order of the Collector. On the other hand Tarsem Lal could not be appointed as a lambardar by the Commissioner and at the most the ld; Commissioner should have remanded the case boa to the Collector for fresh decision on merit. Moreover, the learned Commissioner did not give any reason for ignoring the recommendation of the S.D.O. (C). Concluding his arguments the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is a better candidate then the respondent and should have been concerned for appointment as lambardar.

The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the order of the Commissioner is well reasoned, giving in detail the background of the case. In 1987 the present petitioner withdrew his candidature for the post of lamabardar and then again started contesting it. This shows that he is of fickle mind. The case has been remanded four times and no useful purpose will be served if the order of the Commissioner is set aside.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the copies of judgments annexed with the order. Appointment of a lambardar is the prerogative, of the district Collector. Being incharge of the Administration he is in a position to examine the merits and demerits of each candidate. Tim order of Collector can be reversed by the Commissioner if there is any perversity or illegality in the order. But the Commissioner cannot be allowed to usurp the powers of the Collector. The learned Commissioner couldremand the case after accepting the appeal of the respondent to the Collector, being the appointing authority. But the appointment of respondent No. 1 as lambardar by the Commissioner, when the Collector had not found any of the candidates suitable for the appointment of lambardar, is not in order.

In view of this the revision petition is accepted, the order of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division is set aside and the case is remanded to District Collector, Hoshiarpur for filling up the post of lambardar after considering the name of eligible candidates including the present petitioner and the respondents.

Announced.