Sunder Lal vs Chamba Ram and others

K.S. Narang, F.C.

This is an appeal filed by Sunder Lal under section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, against order dated 20.5.1982 of the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur, in a lambardari case.

Brief facts of this case are that consequent upon the dismissal of Balbir Singh, lambardar of village Lalowali, tehsil Fazilka, proceedings were taken to fill up the vacancy. In response to the proclamation made in the village seven persons put forward their claim. Their applications were processed by the Naib Tehsildar and the Tehsildar fazilka. When the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Fazilka, screened the applications, there were only two contestants namely the appellant and the respondent No. 1 in the field. When the case came up for consideration before the Collector, Ferozepur, a preliminary question was agitated about the place of residence of Sunder Lal appellant. The contention put forward on behalf of Chamba Ram, respondent was that Sunder Lal appellant was resident of Fazilka and reference in this connection was made to 1980PLJ140. On this issue the Collector, by his order dated 7.8.1980, sent back the case to the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Fazilka. With the direction that he should give "definite finding after hearing both the parties as to whether Sunder Lal was resident of village Lalowali." Against this order Chamba Ram respondent 1, went up in appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur, who accepted it and remanded the case to the Collector with the observations that "question regarding place of residence of Sunder Lal should be decided by the Collector himself". When the Collector took up the case again, Jawahara Ram and Bakhtawar Singh, respondent 23, also joined the contest. While considering the merits and qualifications of all the four candidates, the Collector recorded his conclusion as under :

"Shri Sunder Lal owns 16 acres of land and has studied upto Middle Standard. Shri Chamba Ram owns 20 acres of land, knows Urdu and Punjabi and has studied Hindi upto Bhushan level. Shri Bakhtawar Singh owns 8 acres of land and has studied upto 6th standard. He knows Punjabi. Shri Jawahara Ram owns 16 acres of land and he, too, has studied upto 6th standard. He knows Hindi as well. None of the candidates has rendered any specific social service. Shri Chamba Ram''s father is said to have served in the Army in 1940. Shri Jawahara Ram has been a Sarpanch of village since 1972 but Shri Jawahara Ram of his own offered to withdraw out of the contest if Shri Sunder Lal is appointed as Lambardar. In favour of Sunder Lal, it is also on record that he has been serving Sarbarah Lambardar for the last 18 years and has also been a temporary Lambardar. He has gained considerable experience and service rendered by him have been without any stigma. The charge against Shri Sunder Lal is that he is a resident of Fazilka rather than Lalowali. In this regard Shri Sunder Lal has produced receipts for Chuhla Tax for 23.9.75, 5.3.78 and 7.8.80. His ration card is also registered at village Lalowali. As a voter he has been registered both at Fazilka and Lalowali. According to the Sarpanch Shri Jawahara Ram, Shri Sunder Lal resides at village Lalowali where he has a house."

With these observations the Collector, Ferozepur, considered the appellant more suitable candidate and appointed him as Lambardar, by his order dated 13.8.1981. Thereupon, Chamba Ram respondent No. 1 went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur, who accepted it and appointed Chamba Ram, as Lambardar, by his order dated 20.5.1982. Against this order the appellant has now come up in appeal before me.

I have heard the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant was recommended both by the Tehsildar and the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Fazilka, that the Collector considered the appellant to be more suitable for the post; that the appellant resided in the village Lalowali as is clear from the receipts of paying the Chuhla Tax and his name had also been entered in the voter list of village: that the Sarpanch of the village deposed in his favour that he was living in the village; that the community did not mean caste or subcaste as held in 1980 P.L.J. 319 and 1968 P.L.J. 200, that according to the Naksha Lambardari "Khatris" of the village pay more land revenue that the Kamboj''s and that the Collector after considering all the aspects and satisfying himself had rightly appointed the appellant as Lambardar in pursuance of a specific direction of Commissioner. He further stated that according to the well settled law choice of the Collector should not be upset unless it is perverse. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand, stated that the appellant was a resident of Fazilka and it was clear from the order of the Collector that the appellant was having his residence at two places. According to the ruling 1980 P.L.J. 299 a person living at two places could be appointed Lambardar only if no other suitable candidate was available. He further urged that father of the respondent No.1, was Superdar in Pakistan and he had more influence in the village as the Kamboj families in the village are larger than the Khatri and Arora families. He also urged that the appellant had concealed the fact of being Sarbarah Lambardar of Balbir Singh from the authorities and he was also involved in some criminal case.

I have gone through the record of the case. The learned Additional Commissioner has questioned the Collector''s judgment in regard to the suitability of the appellant on the grounds that the appellant is not residing in the village; that the respondent 1 belongs to the dominant community in the village as he is Kamboj and that father of respondent 1 was a Lambardar in West Pakistan and the vacancy in this case emanated from the Muslim background who migrated to Pakistan. The Collector has already gone into these questions including the question of residence of the appellant. After thorough enquiry the Collector had come to the conclusion that the appellant was residing in the village Lalowali. It is a finding purely on facts and is supported by the evidence that the appellant is entered as voter in the village, owns land in the village and is paying Chuhla Tax also. Above all, the Sarpanch of village has also deposed that he is residing in the village. As such, this finding of fact did not warrant any interference. As held in 1980 P.L.J. 319 the interpretation of community cannot be narrowed down to a group of persons having same caste or subcaste within such a community. Both the communities involved are Hindus. It is also apparent from the record that the appellant had worked as Sarbrah Lambardar for more than 18 years and also as a temporary Lambardar for a sufficient long period. Jawahara Ram, Sarpanch of the village also withdrew in his favour. Above all is the fact that after considering the merits and qualifications of all the candidates, the Collector considered the appellant to be more suitable for the office. It is the Collector who exercises administrative control over the revenue set up of his district and, therefore, his judgment with regard to the suitability of a candidate is generally to be respected. In the present case the name of the appellant was also recommended by the Tehsildar and the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Fazilka. According to the well settled law, choice of the Collector should not ordinarily be interfered with. No illegality or irregularity has been brought out to have been committed by the Collector while exercising his choice. His order is well reasoned and fully justifies his choice. In this background of the matter, I accept the appeal, set aside the order dated 20.5.1982 of the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur and uphold the order dated 13.8.1981 of the Collector, Ferozepur.

To be communicated