Rajinder Singh vs Manjit Singh

C.L. Bains, FC.

This is a revision petition filed under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against an order dated 27.2.1996 of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar vide which he has dismissed the appeal against an order dated 10.3.1995 of Collector, Hoshiarpur.

The brief facts of this case are that on the death of Rajinder Singh Lambardar of village Jaura dated 1.10.1992 Naib Tehsildar Tanda got a proclamation made in the village for inviting applications from the eligible persons. In response to this proclamation 13 persons submitted their applications. Naib Tehsildar recommended the name of Manjit Singh vide his order dated 14.6.94. Tehsildar Dasuya vide his order dated 28.9.1994 did not agree with the report of Tehsildar Tanda and recommended the name of Rajinder Singh. S.D.O.(C) Dasuya agreed with the recommendations made by the Tehsildar Dasuya. The merits of two candidates are as under :

Rajinder Singh : He is 60 years old. He owns 3 kanals of land in the village. He resides in the village. He is an exserviceman. His educational qualification is higher secondary pass.

Manjit Singh; He is 42 years of age. He owns 50 kanals 10 marlas of land in the village. He is agriculturist by profession and resides in the village. His educational qualification is matriculation.

District Collector Hoshiarpur vide his order dated 10.3.1995 appointed Manjit Singh as Lambardar of the village. Feeling aggrieved Rajinder Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar who after hearing both the parties dismissed the appeal. Hence the revision petition before this court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner''s counsel has argued that according to the Rule 15 petitioner is more educated and retired Subedar/Honorary Captain from the Indian Army and he participated in various wars like China War, 1965 Pak War and 1971 again Pak war and he was awarded various Medals which has been mentioned in the written arguments submitted by the petitioner, and that respondent is an absentee from the village and at present also respondent is not in India. He quoted 1982 PLJ page 320 and mentioned that this Court has got wide powers under section 16 of the Land Revenue Act. He also quoted 1997 Vol. I PLJ page 575 in which this court quashed both the orders of the Collector and Commissioner and himself appointed Lambardar of the Village. He further quoted 1987 PLJ page 514 that exservicemen are most disciplined persons and should be preferred and that the petitioner has also pucca house, pension as well as other sources of income and the Gram Panchayat of village Jaura has also supported the claim of the petitioner.

In reply the respondent''s counsel has also submitted written arguments. He has argued that the Collector has concluded that Rajinder Singh (petitioner) was quite old and looks physically unfit to perform the duties of the Lambardar. He further argued that the respondent is 42 years old as against 60 years old petitioner and that he holds 56 kanals of land and 10th pass, and that the total holding of the petitioner is 3 kanal out of which he had sold 2 kanal 2 marla on 21.7.1998, and therefore, he did not own sufficient land, and that the order of appointment dated 10.3.1995 is neither perverse nor illegal and the same has been upheld by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. He has quoted 1974 PLJ page 425 and 1975 PLJ page 59. He has quoted various other rulings as mentioned in the written arguments in support of his claims and that the petitioner at the instance of Gram Panchayat is trying to create an impression that the respondent is not a permanent resident of village and that in the temporary absence of the respondent Shri Kirpal Singh son of Dharam Singh has served as Sarbrah Lambardar who was appointed by the Collector vide his orders dated 13.2.98.

I have considered the merits and demerits of the case of both the candidates and find that the petitioner has been ignored on the ground that he looks physically weak. I have seen the petitioner myself who looks fit and fine and the assumption of the Collector and that of the Commissioner is not based on merits according to my mind. The order of the Commissioner is quite sketchy and he has rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the same ground that appellant does not appear strong enough to discharge the responsibilities of the Lambardar. The Commissioner has also mentioned that exarmy person is sometimes very unsuitable because he remains out of civil touch and land revenue matters for a very long time. In any case I am not in agreement with the observations of the Commissioner at all. Exarmy person should always be preferred to others if other merits are equal. In this case although the petitioner is 60 years old but he is fit and fine and can perform the duties of the Lambardar without any difficulty. The Land Revenue in the State have been abolished and therefore, the ownership of land should not be a very major factor which should weigh with the Revenue Officers while appointing the Lambardar in the State now. In any case the petitioner owns a pucca house and is getting good pension; on the other hand there is a big minus factor for the respondent that he is generally away to Canada from the village and the country. The respondent''s counsel has admitted that these days also he is away to Canada. The village Panchayat has given in writing that no member of the family of the respondent lives in the village and, therefore, the respondent also has gone to Canada again after living in India for a short period, that also for the reasons that the petitioner had complaints to the Collector that he was not living in the village and the country. The petitioner is higher secondary pass and being an exarmy and available all the time should be preferred to be appointed as Lambardar of the village. Therefore, I upset the orders of the Collector and that of the Commissioner and appoint Rajinder Singh as Lambardar of village Jaura, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur in place of Manjit Singh because the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner being not based on sound reasons are perverse. Therefore, revision petition is accepted.

Orders be communicated to the parties.