Pritam Singh vs State of Punjab

S.R. Bunger, F.C.

The present is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 29.11.1996, passed by the

Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, in a Lambardari case.

The brief facts of this case are that, the District Collector, Sangrur, vide his order dated 14.12.1992, had dismissed the petitionerPritam Singh

from the post of Lambardar of village Kaulseri, Tehsilar Dhuri, District Sangrur, on the ground, that he had wrongly verified the ''Kurshinama'' in

the mutation case regarding the inheritance of Jagrup Singh, in which he had omitted the name of widow of Jagrup Singh, with an ulterior motive,

for a personal gain in complicity with the other party; and, with a view to cover up his omission and commission, he had blamed the halqa Patwari,

thus stating a lie.

Before passing his abovesaid order, the District Collector had issued a show cause notice dated 2.11.1992, to Pritam Singh; asking him to explain,

as to why he should not be removed from the post of Lambardar, in view of the fact that, he had wrongly verified the ''Kurshinama'' on the

mutation No. 1865 of village Kaulseri, Tehsil Malerkotla, in which, the name of Harbans Kaur widow of Jagrup Singh was omitted, which had

wreaked great loss to the said widow, by colluding with the other party for personal gain.

This show cause notice was replied to by Pritam Singh on 12.11.1992; in which, Pritam Singh had stated, that the concerned Patwari had

fraudulently obtained his signature on the said mutationsheet, on the day when the mutations pertaining to village Kaulseri were got decided by him

in the Tehsil office Dhuri. He had thus blamed the halqa Patwari Sh. Birbal Dass, for this lapse. A photocopy of the affidavit from Pritam Singh

Lambardar attested on 9.7.1991, is available on the Collector''s file, which supports his version given in the letter dated 12.11.1992.

The District Collector had listened to both Pritam Singh, as well as Birbal Dass Patwari, halqa Sangatpura on 14.12.1992; and consequently, had

ordered dismissal of Pritam Singh from the post of Lambardar on 14.12.1992. In his statement, Birbal Dass Patwari had mentioned that Pritam

Singh had submitted an affidavit dated 29.7.1991, before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, as per which, he had confessed the

attestation of ''Kurshinama'' in the said mutation. The Patwari had also produced a photocopy of the affidavit dated 29.7.1991 from Pritam Singh.

Aggrieved by Collector''s order, Pritam Singh had filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, on 28.12.1992, which was

rejected vide order dated 29.11.1996, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala. The present revision petition is directed

against this order.

The Ld. counsel for the petitioner, as well as the Senior State Counsel, on behalf of the State, have been heard. After careful consideration of

the facts and circumstances of the case and after thorough perusal of the record, I am of the view, that the present revision petition has merit and

the same deserves to be accepted; the impugned orders need to be set aside and the Lambardari needs to be restored and vested on the

petitionerPritam Singh.

At the outset, it may be pointed out, that the Collector''s order is vague, nonspeaking and is based on the halfbaked facts. The Ld.

Commissioner (Appeals) also appears to have rejected the appeal filed by Pritam Singh very suavely and facilely, without properly appreciating the

role of Pritam Singh in the entire episode. Rule 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules 1909 deals with ""Dismissal of headmen"", which reads as

follows :

(i) A headman shall be dismissed when

(a) he is sentenced to imprisonment for one year or upwards or to any heavier sentence; or

(b) in an estate owned altogether or chiefly of Government he ceases to possess the interest which led to his appointment;

(c) in any other estate he ceases to be a landowner in the estate or subdivision of the estate in respect of which he holds office;

(d) he has mortgaged his holding and has delivered possession to the mortgagee; but in special cases the Collector may with the Commissioner''s

sanction retain him in his office under such circumstances; if he can furnish adequate security for the payment of the revenue he has to collect and

for the due discharge of his duties; or

(e) his holding has been transferred under section 71 of the Land Revenue Act or the assessment thereof has been annulled under Section 73 of the

Act. (ii) A headman may be dismissed when

(a) criminal proceedings which have been taken against him show that he is unfit to be entrusted any longer with the duties of his office; or

(b) he is seriously embarrassed by debt, or if his unencumbered holding is so small as to disqualify him in the Collector''s opinion for the

responsibility attached to the office of headman; or

(c) owing to age or physical or mental incapacity, or absence from the estate, he is unable to discharge the duties of his office; or

(d) There is reason to believe that he has taken part in, or concealed illicit distillation, or the smuggling of contraband articles such as narcotics,

gold, jewellery, foreign exchange, (in Pb. only) cocaine, opium or charas;

(e) he takes part in any unconstitutional agitation against the Government or failed to give his active support to the Government in the maintenance

of law and order;

(f) he neglects to discharge his duties or is otherwise shown to be incompetent;

(g) the estate or subdivision thereof, in respect of which he holds office, or his own holding is attached either for an arrear of land revenue or by

order of any court.

As per the above Rule, the eventualities have been put under two broad categories; and, if the case of a Lambardar falls under Rule 16(i), in that

case, it has been made compulsory and obligatory on the part of the District Collector to dismiss a Lambardar from the post. But, if the case falls

under category 16(ii), in that event, the District Collector has been given discretion, either to dismiss the headman or to acquit him. As this entails

an element of discretion, so the prudence demands that the discretion should be exercised very carefully and judiciously. The District Collector,

while exercising his discretion, must pass a very speaking order by recording good and sufficient reasons, as to why he is exercising his discretion

for dismissal of a Lambardar and not for acquittal, and vice versa.

In the instant case, in the show cause notice issued to the LambardarPritam Singh, the Collector had no doubt made mention of Rule 16, but while

passing his order, dismissing the Lambardar, no reference to any Rule has been made at all. The Collector was supposed to record, as to under

which clause of Rule 16(i) or Rule 16(ii), he was passing his order. In the absence of that, the Collector''s order is vague and nonspeaking. The

Collector does not seem to have properly applied his mind to the facts of the case; and, seems to have straightaway ordered the extreme action

against the Lambardar, without going into the gravity of the socalled omission on the part of the Lambardar, and its resultant effect.

If we analyse the facts of the case, we may notice that the only fault of Pritam Singh Lambardar is that he had appended his signature on the

mutationsheet, on which the Pedigree Table with regard to the deceasedJagrup Singh had been drawn up. When asked to explain his lapse, the

Lambardar had clearly blamed the Patwari concerned, stating that he had obtained his signature on the mutationsheet fraudulently. Anyone, having

the personal knowledge about the style of functioning of the village Patwaries will not disbelieve the version of the Lambardar. He had also

furnished an affidavit, blaming the Patwari concerned, earlier on 9.7.1991.

After thoroughly considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the Patwari concerned seems to be the villain of the present episode.

The Patwari seems to have obtained the signature of the Lambardar on the mutationsheet, with a view to favour the other party, by concealing the

fact about the widow of the deceasedJagrup Singh. After he had come to know that the Lambardar had submitted an affidavit attested on

9.7.1991, blaming him for the lapse, he had procured the affidavit dated 29.7.1991, from Pritam Singh through the good offices, if not the

complicity, of Shri Sunil D. Jindal Advocate, Sangrur, which was attested by the Executive Magistrate, Sangrur. As per this affidavit, it has been

deposed by Pritam Singh Lambardar, that he had consciously and rightly verified the PedigreeTable.

The Patwari, in his statement before the District Collector, Sangrur, on 14.12.1992, in support of his defence, had referred to this affidavit dated

29.7.1991, by stating that this affidavit was given by Pritam Singh before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. This is a mystery and an

enigma, because I have not been able to understand as to what was the occasion and necessity for Pritam Singh Lambardar to give this affidavit,

and to present the same before the Commissioner. On 29.7.1991, no case was pending before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, as

Pritam Singh had filed his appeal against the Collector''s order, on 28.12.1992 only. The original affidavit is not available on the record.

The District Collector, Sangrur, had heavily relied upon this affidavit dated 29.7.1991, allegedly given by Pritam Singh Lambardar, while passing

his order dated 14.12.1992, by construing it, as a confession on the part of Pritam Singh about his wrong verification of the ''Kurshinama''. One

may pause for a moment and wonder as to what was the necessity for Pritam Singh to give this affidavit, when there was no occasion at all, and

that too, furnishing it to the Commissioner, especially, when Pritam Singh had earlier given his affidavit dated 9.7.1991, squarely blaming the

Patwari concerned for the lapse. This goads me to convince myself that, the affidavit dated 29.7.1991 was never given by the LambardarPritam

Singh consciously; and, this seems to have been obtained from him through dubious means, as a result of the brainwave of the PatwariBirbal Dass.

As mentioned earlier, the District Collector had ordered dismissal of the Lambardar on the basis of this affidavit, and the Ld. Commissioner,

while rejecting the appeal filed by Pritam Singh against the Collector''s order, was also greatly influenced while passing his order, by this affidavit,

although by mistake, he has called this, as ''PowerofAttorney'', in the opening paragraph of his order, dated 29.11.1996.

It may be interesting to mention here that the original affidavit dated 29.7.1991, had neither been seen by the Collector or the Commissioner nor it

is available in the record of the Collector or the Commissioner. Again, neither the Collector nor the Commissioner seems to have applied his mind

to the necessity and occasion for Pritam Singh Lambardar, to furnish such an affidavit. Moreover, this affidavit was rendered meaningless when the

Lambardar in his reply dated 12.11.1992, to the showcause notice, had again blamed the Patwari concerned for this lapse. Again, neither the

Collector nor the Commissioner (Appeals) had confronted Pritam Singh with this affidavit, before using this against him, which is a serious lapse.

Apparently, this was figment of Patwari''s imagination, just to provide a cover up to his own guilt, and thus, to save his own skin.

Further, the District Collector in the show cause notice dated 2.11.1992, had observed that he (Pritam Singh) had mixed up with the other party

for personal gain while attesting the Pedigree Table; but, not even an iota of evidence has been brought on the record to substantiate this.

I am of the considered opinion, that, Pritam Singh Lambardar had not verified the ''Kurshinama'' consciously, and the said Patwari appears to have

obtained his signature on the mutationsheet without divulging him anything. Even if the LambardarPritam Singh had verified the Kurshinama

consciously, even then, the lapse on the part of the Lambardar is not so serious, so as to attract the extreme punishment. In view of the facts of the

case, the Lambardar needs to be given benefit of doubt, because the relationship between Jagrup Singh and his alleged widowHarbans Kaur was

not a known established fact; it was contentious, and even the A.C. Ist Grade, Malerkotla, vide his order dated 2.7.1991, passed in mutation No.

1865, of village Kaulseri, Tehsil Malerkotla had found the evidence led by Harbans Kaur to prove her relationship with Jagrup Singh ""as full of

contradictions which could not be relied upon.

Appraisal of the facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicates that the LambardarPritam Singh was victim of circumstances, and needle

of suspicion tilts towards the PatwariBirbal Dass. The LambardarPritam Singh has already suffered a lot; as he had been fighting a legal battle to

defend his Lambardari since 1992, for no apparent fault on his part.

In view of the above discussion, I hereby accept the present revision petition; set aside the order dated 29.11.1996, passed by the

Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, as well as the order dated 14.12.1992, passed by the District Collector, Sangrur; and, hereby

order restoration of Lambardari on Pritam Singh.