AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.K. Srivastava, FC.
The petitioner, Bhupinder Singh was ignored by the Collector, Ropar and the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala in appointment of Lambardar for villageChanalo, PattiPhoolan Rajput because he had sold most of his land and used to be living in Muskat. In his revision petition against these orders dated 20.5.1999 of District Collector and dated 22.8.2003 of Commissioner, Patiala Division, he has taken following arguments :
(i) that he is the son of deceased Lambardar.
(ii) that the respondent''s father is already a Lambardar of another patti of the village and there cannot be two Lambardars from one family.
(iii) that he was wrongly ignored by the Collector/Commissioner on account of lesser land and education.
The petitioner is 6th class pass against matriculate qualification of the respondent, Narinder Singh. Out of his total land holding of 11 Kanal 11 Marlas, he sold 10 Kanal 11 Marlas on 13.1.2005 to Smt. Roop Kiran. He is thus virtually landless now compared to 3 acres of land owned by the respondent. He used to be living in Muskat and ration card of his family was, therefore, made in the name of his wife. Only recently he got another ration card made showing him as head of the family. In his written arguments, the petitioner''s counsel has said nothing in defence of his landholding or the earlier ration card which was made in his wife''s name. I have also perused the arguments submitted by the petitioner in appeal before the Commissioner and that also lacks substance.
In the above circumstances I find myself unable to interfere with the two concurrent orders passed in favour of the respondent, Narinder Singh. As the petitioner left his village for Muskat and remained there until the death of his father, he got out of touch of the villagelife. Therefore, even if he is now living in the village, he has definitely lost some ground. Son of deceased Lambardar is preferred in appointment due to the reason that a son acquires some experience of Lambardari work from his father. But, if the son lived in Muskat, he definitely lost the opportunity to gain this experience. Size of landholding is an important consideration in the appointment of a Lambardar and the petitioner miserably lacks in this regard too. She respondent cannot be ignored just because his facts is a Lambardar.
The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Announced.