Umed Singh vs State of Haryana and Others

Ajai Lamba, J.—Umed Singh s/o Akhi Ram has filed this writ petition. The facts in seriatim are that Akhi Ram, Lambardar of village Jahri, Tehsil and District Sonepat died on 29.01.1973. Post of Lambardar, accordingly, was to be filled. Vide order Annexure P-3-dated 20.03.2007, respondent No. 6 i.e. Neeraj s/o Kishan Chand was recommended to the Collector for appointment as Lambardar. The only contestant as against the claim of Neeraj was Surender s/o Umed Singh-respondent No. 7. Surender is none other but the son of the petitioner-Umed Singh. Vide order Annexure P-4 dated 26.04.2007, Collector Sonepat appointed respondent No. 6-Neeraj as Lambardar of the village. Respondent No. 7-Surender s/o Umed Singh filed an appeal against order Annexure P-3 on 07.06.2007 before the Commissioner, Rohtak.

While the appeal filed by the son of the petitioner i.e. respondent No. 7 was pending before the Commissioner, Rohtak, Camp at Sonepat, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC placed on record as Annexure P-5 with the contention that the petitioner had been appointed Lambardar on 16.08.1973 by SDM Sonepat. The petitioner had been working as Lambardar since 1974. It has been pleaded that at the stage of filing application, the petitioner had come to know that proceedings for appointment of Lambardar are pending and, therefore, the applicant be impleaded.

The appeal has been decided vide order Annexure P-6 dated 10.04.2009. Appointment of Neeraj-respondent No. 6 as Lambardar has been upheld while dismissing the appeal. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that no order had been passed in regard to the application of the petitioner for being impleaded.

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Annexure P-1 is the register of Lambardars and name of the petitioner finds mention therein and, therefore, in view of the fact that petitioner is serving as Lambardar, a new Lambardar could not have been appointed.

On the second count, it has been argued that the petitioner has done the work of Lambardar since 1974 till 2006.

On the third count, it has been argued that as per Punjab Land Administration Manual, Para No. 323-A, the petitioner could be appointed as Lambardar, in case no other candidate is forthcoming, and in case person at issue has a hereditary claim.

Learned counsel for the respondent contends that there is no order appointing the petitioner as Lambardar. There is a solitary entry in the register of Lambardars mentioning the name of the petitioner. Other than that, there is no record that would indicate that the claim of the petitioner for appointment of Lambardar was considered or that any authority had appointed the petitioner as Lambardar.

Considering the nature of issue, the Court has pointedly asked the petitioner as to the Sanad/order appointing the petitioner as Lambardar. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no such Sanad or order appointing the petitioner as Lambardar available with the petitioner. Neither any identity card showing the petitioner as Lambardar was issued.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to draw the attention of the Court towards any document or record that would indicate that any Mustari Munadi/publication was made in the village inviting applications for appointment of Lambardar. There is no document that would show that name of the petitioner was recommended by revenue officials/officer/authority to Collector for appointment of Lambardar. There is no order of Collector appointing the petitioner as Lambardar.

I have considered the rival contentions.

Considering the nature of case, following order was passed on 02.02.2011:-

Reply to para-3 of the writ petition (on merits) on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5 through Shri Rajinder Singh, Tehsildar, Sonepat, clearly indicates that a false picture has been painted by the official respondents. The facts certainly have not been made clear, as per record. District Collector is the appointing authority for Lambardar. As per affidavit dated 30.9.2010, filed by Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, as per record maintained, the petitioner was appointed as Lambardar of the village.

This court would like to be informed as to whether the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5 was approved by Collector, Sonepat or not, before its filing. The issue assumes importance because substantial time of the court has been wasted because of misleading statement given on behalf of the State or insufficient or inadequate facts being brought out.

This court would also like to know whether any inquiry has been conducted or not in regard to appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar on 16.8.1973. In case, the name of the petitioner was incorporated in the register of Lambardars by way of fraud or mischief, surely, the facts having come to the notice of the authorities, some kind of action should have been taken. Adjourned to 17.03.2011.

Affidavit sworn on 13.03.2011 has been filed by Sh. Pankaj Aggarwal, IAS, Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat on the strength of inquiry report. Inquiry report has been placed on record as Annexure R-3. Following are the contents of the report:

Office record in the subject matter has been perused. On the basis of record para wise report is as under:

(i) As per the entry in the register petitioner was appointed as Lambardar on 16-8-1973 by the then SDO (C). There was no addition/subtractions in the register.

(ii) Petitioner Umed Singh was appointed Lambardar after the death of his father Akhe Ram, Lambardar of village Jahri as per the entry in the register.

(iii) No file was submitted in the Record Room of the office of Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat regarding the order dated 16-8-1973 by which the petitioner was appointed as Lambardar. No entry was found available in any register maintain in record room.

(iv) No file regarding appointment of Umed Singh as Lambardar is available in the office. Sh. Ram Kishan and Sh. Dalip Singh, the then reader and Ahalmad respectively in the office have since been expired.

(v) Though as per Land Revenue Rules, SDO (C)-(Assistant Collector, First Grade) is not competent to appoint Lambardar but as per the entry in the Lambardari register, on the recommendation of Naib Tehsildar in case No. 12/NT reported on dated 12-07-1973, there is an entry in the register of Lambardar for appointment of Umed Singh as Lambardar on 16-08-1973 by the then Sub Divisional (C), Sonipat.

The desired report is being sent on the basis of record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as they emerge from the record, it becomes evident that on the death of Akhi Ram-father of the petitioner in 1973, post of Lambardar for the village was never advertised. No procedure was initiated for appointment of a Lambardar. Munadi inviting applications for appointment of Lambardar for the village was not conducted. Applications were not invited or received. There is no recommendation after inquiry as to the eligibility or suitability of the petitioner for being appointed as a Lambardar. There is no order passed by any authority, SDO (Civil) or Collector vide which, the petitioner had been appointed as Lambardar. Sanad in regard to the appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar was not issued. Despite such being the facts, the petitioner continued to serve as Lambardar. There is only a solitary entry in the register of Lambardars indicating that the petitioner had been appointed as Lambardar.

So far as the Punjab Land Administration Manual is concerned, relevant provisions are contained in Para Nos. 323 to 328. As per para No. 323 of Punjab Land Administration Manual, where the office of Headman becomes vacant, it is the duty of the Tehsildar to report without delay regarding the appointment of a successor.

In para No. 323-A, it has been provided that it is imperative that when a post falls vacant, it should be filled as quickly as possible. In cases where the deceased is to be succeeded by his heir, under Land Revenue Rule 17(ii), and no other candidate is forthcoming, no reference need to be made to the Collector as the appointment is sanctioned by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. It is advisable, however, that Sanad of appointment should be signed by the Collector himself as this emphasizes the importance of post and enhances the value of the Sanad. The other paras in the Manual are not relevant for consideration of the issue raised in this petition.

In the case in hand, as noticed above, there is no document indicating following of any procedure.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that there was no other candidate and, he was appointed on account of hereditary claim, has to be rejected because no Munadi or publication was made in the village. It could be only after Munadi that applications could be invited and it could be made clear that there is one contestant only or there more contestants. In such circumstances, Para No. 323-A does not favour the case of the petitioner.

Even otherwise, there is no order/sanad appointing the petitioner as Lambardar passed either by Assistant Collector Ist Grade or Collector. Collectively, when the facts are considered, it becomes evident that other than Annexure P-1, there is nothing available on the record of the revenue officers that the petitioner was appointed as a Lambardar. There is no order of appointment that has seen the light of the day. An entry in the Register could be made only if a person was appointed as Lambardar. A person can be appointed Lambardar vide an order passed to that effect by a competent authority. If no such order is passed, no entry in register of Lambardars could be made. Rights would flow from the letter of appointment of Lambardar and consequent Sanad/order issued to that effect, and not merely from an entry in the Register.

I have also considered the fact that son of the petitioner also competed for the post of Lambardar. The Collector did not select the said person namely Surender-respondent No. 7. Respondent No. 7 filed an appeal and it is at that juncture that the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded as a party to stake his claim to continue as a Lambardar of the village. It appears that when it became evident that the respondent No. 7 was not being appointed Lambardar, the petitioner filed the application.

The Court has been informed that respondent No. 7-Surender-son of the petitioner filed a revision against order passed by the Commissioner Annexure P-6 before the Financial Commissioner that has also been dismissed. The said fact has not been brought out by the petitioner in the pleadings in this petition.

In view of the above, the petition is dismissed.

The authorities are directed to old a detailed inquiry and see as to under what circumstances, the petitioner continued to serve as a Lambardar. In case there is forgery or manipulation at the instance of the petitioner, appropriate action be taken. Copy of the order be given under signatures of the Bench Reader.