Bhupinder Singh vs Financial Commissioner, Appeals-1 and Others

P. Sathasivam, J.—Aggrieved by the order of respondents No. 1 to 3 in respect of appointment of fourth respondent herein namely Narinder Singh as Lambardar petitioner has filed the above writ petition before this Court.

In view of the detail orders of Original, Appellate and Revisional Authorities considering the claim of all eligible persons we are of the view that it is unnecessary to traverse all the factual details as stated in the petition.

Due to death of Ujjal Singh on 28.11.1995, the said post fell vacant. After making due publication within the prescribed time, four applications were received. All the parties were called by the Collector, Rupnagar. The Officer has also perused the records produced by them. According to the Collector-respondent No. 3, among all the candidates 4th respondent-Narinder Singh was better and suitable than other three candidates. He noted that fourth respondent studied 10th standard and having 3 acres of land. He is permanent resident of Village Chanalo. He lives in a very same village. The fifth respondent Jagtar Singh is a truck driver in Mohali and according to the Collector his educational qualification and land owned is less than the fourth respondent. He also found that the petitioner-Bhupinder Singh is less educated and having less land than the fourth-7 respondent. He also concluded that fourth respondent bears good moral character and he is able to read and writ Punjabi and English. He further observed that he is not related to any political party. On the other hand, he is more educated and having more lands than the other candidates. Considering the fact that he is young, the Collector has concluded that fourth respondent herein is more suitable than the other candidates and appointed him as Lambardar in place of deceased Lambardar Ujjal Singh.

Questioning the order of the District Collector appointing fourth respondent as Lambardar the petitioner preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) Patiala Division, Patiala. The Commissioner considered his claim as well as others, more particularly the case of selected candidate Narinder Singh. It is seen from the order of the Commissioner that Bhupinder Singh (Petitioner herein) possessed two ration cards out of which one alone refers that he is a head of the family. Finding that in the other ration card his wife was shown as head of the family, the Commissioner has concluded that he did not have continuous stay in the Village. He also concluded that the selected candidate Narinder Singh is younger and possess more lands and also resident of the same Village. After analyzing the comparative claim of both the petitioner and fourth respondent the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala accepted the conclusion arrived at by the Collector and finding no illegality or perversity dismissed the appeal.

Not satisfied with the order of the Commissioner, the petitioner preferred the revision before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner perused the records relating to the petitioner as well as fourth respondent. He also verified the ration card of the petitioner and arrived at a conclusion that he used to live in Muskat. After finding that size of land holding is an important consideration for the appointment of Lambardar and the petitioner miserably lacks in this regard too, concurred the orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the revision petition.

Questioning all the above three orders the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Learned Counsel appearing for him reiterated the very same factual details urged before all the three authorities. In as much as the Original authority after analyzing the related merits and demerits of the applicants and satisfied that amount all the persons fourth respondent is most suitable considering his young age, residing in the same Village, possessed sufficient lands selected him as Lambardar, we are not inclined to interfere with the said order. In fact the reasoning of the order of the Original Authority was duly considered and confirmed by Appellate and revisional Authorities.

In view of the factual finding based on acceptable material with regard to eligibility, suitability and all other requirements in terms of Punjab Land Revenue Rules we do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner, on the other hand we are in the agreement with the said conclusion. Consequently, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.

No costs.