Harbans Singh vs Nirmal Jit Singh

K.S. Janjua, FC.

This revision petition u/s 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 is directed against the order (20.12.1996) passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner in Lambardari case.

On the death of Bakhshish Singh, Lambardar of village Chananwindi, Tehsil Sultanpur Distt. Kapurthala proclamation was made in the village inviting applications from willing candidates. In all, six persons including petitioner and respondent applied for the post. After examining the merits of applicants SDO(C) recommended the name of respondent who was appointed as Lambardar by the District Collector (21.12.1994). Aggrieved by this order respondent preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar mainly on the grounds that he owns more land as compared to respondent, respondent is an `Arhtia'' in the nearby village and is not available during day time and that the respondent had once obtained Ration card by making false statement. After hearing the arguments advanced by the counsel of both the parties the Commissioner (Appeals) found no irregularity in the order of Collector and dismissed the appeal (20.12.1996). Now the instant revision.

The petitioner Harbans Singh is 48 years old, exserviceman and owns 36 Kanals land in the village. The respondent Nirmaljit Singh is 27 years old, studied upto B.A. and owns 12 Kanals of land and is working as Arhtia in the village and is the choice of Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar, SDO, Distt. Collector and Commissioner.

The counsel for the petitioner claimed that the petitioner was agriculturist by profession and was available to community throughout the day in the village. He also stated that the respondent has Arhtia shop in a village which is about 3 kilometres away from Chananwindi.

Normally, I would not interfere with the choice of Distt. Collector. It has been approved by the Commissioner but the circumstances in the case are rather peculiar.

First; the legal points raised by the counsel for the petitioner. He cited 1988 PLJ 599. According to this citation, the Financial Commissioner had held that "the candidate should actually reside in the village and be available to the village community throughout the day candidate residing and working in the village itself ought to be preferred to candidate who while residing in the village works outside the village during the daytime candidate fulfilling both conditions if not available. As second best alternative candidate residing in the village but working outside the village during day time, can be considered". I am in full agreement with this view. This argument weakens the case of respondent.

On facts, it has been brought to my notice that the respondent entered into an agreement for sale of some land for Rs. 1.70 lacs per acre but sold the same land subsequently at a much lower rate in order to avoid stamp duty. These documents are available on the file and this is not denied by the counsel for the respondent. In fact, it was admitted at bar that this was done in order to avoid stamp duty. In my view such conduct on the part of a Lambardar or a candidate automatically disqualifies him to hold that post. When a properly qualified candidate is available in the village, resides and works in the village, he should be given preference over a candidate who though residing in the village but is working somewhere else.

The above discussion leads me to the inevitable conclusion that the petition should be accepted and Harbans Singh should be appointed as Lambardar of village Chananwindi, Tehsil Sultanpur, Distt. Kapurthala. Ordered accordingly.

Announced.