Pritam Singh vs Jaspal Singh

G.S. Cheema, F.C.

This is an appeal under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue ACt, 1887 concerning the nambardari of Ghasitpura village, tehsil Khadoor Sahib, district Amritsar, against the orders of the Commissioner of the Jalandhar Division, dated 25.2.2005.

The last nambardar, Sh. Hazara Singh died on 15.2.1975. During his old age the present appellant, who is his son, Pritam Singh, was functioning as sarbrah and he continued to discharge the duties and responsibilities attached to that office thereafter as well. When formal proceedings for the appointment of his successor were started three persons applied, namely (i) Pritam Singh, the sarbarah, (ii) Lakhwinder Singh another son of the deceased and (iii) Jaspal Singh son of Harbans Singh, a grandson of the deceased.

All three were qualified but keeping in view the experience and past services of Pritam Singh, the Collector appointed Pritam Singh as nambardar.

Jaspal Singh went in appeal before the Commissioner, who, by his order dated 25.2.2005, set aside the Collector''s selection and appointed Jaspal Singh, Pritam Singh''s nephew instead. The main reason for preferring him was the relative youth of Jaspal Singh who was about 40 years of age; and his higher education as compared to Pritam Singh. The latter is over 75 and literate only in Urdu. Feeling aggrieved by this order Pritam Singh filed the present R.O.A.

In spite of repeated calls neither the respondent nor his counsel appeared in court today, so arguments were heard ex parte. Petitioner''s counsel, Mr. G.S. Nagra stressed that ordinarily the Collector was the best judge as to who should be the nambardar, and in this case Pritam Singh had been working as such for more than 30 years. He was admittedly old, but he was still in good health and it would be a humiliation for him if he was passed over in favour of his nephew, and his past services of over three decades set at nought.

Pritam Singh was present in court and in spite of his age he seemed fit. The reasons set forth by the appellant carry weight. I, therefore, accept the appeal and set aside the Commissioner''s order, thus restoring the Collector''s order of 8.1.2004.

Announced.