LAWS(P&H)-1997-9-110

JASVIR SINGH Vs. HARSHARANJIT SINGH

Decided On September 10, 1997
JASVIR SINGH Appellant
V/S
Harsharanjit Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 27.2.1996, passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, in a Lambardari case.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are, that, to fill-up the vacancy of a Lambardar in Village Raniwala, Tehsil Malout, District Faridkot (now District Muktsar) which was caused with the death of the previous Lambardar Savinder Singh on 31.1.1994, a proclamation was made in Village for inviting applications from the desirous candidates, and for that, S/Sh. Harsharanjit Singh, Bawa Singh, Jasvir Singh and Dheer Singh had submitted their applications. The Tehsildar, Malout had recommended the name of Jasvir Singh for appointment as Lambardar; whereas, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Malout had recommended the name of Harsharanjit Singh. The Tehsildar, Malout had specifically mentioned that Harsharanjit Singh had his residence at Malout Mandi; as such, he was not residing at Village Raniwala; and, in view of that, he was not fit for the appointment of Lambardar. The District Collector, Faridkot vide his order dated 6.11.1995, had ordered the appointment of Harsharanjit Singh as Lambardar. In his order, the District Collector had observed, that, "Jasvir Singh is the son of the deceased Lambardar Savinder Singh; owns about 11 Acres of land; is aged 35 years and has studied up to 10th standard"; regarding Harsharanjit Singh, "he is a Law graduate; owns 10 Acres of land and is aged 41 years". Aggrieved by the Collector's order, Jasvir Singh had filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, but the same was rejected vide Commissioner's order dated 27.2.1996. Still dissatisfied with this order, Jasvir Singh had filed the present revision petition dated 24.9.1996.

(3.) SO far as, the personal merits of these two contestants are concerned, Jasvir Singh has an edge over Harsharanjit Singh in the ownership of land in the Village, as well as, in the age factor; but, so far education is concerned, the petitioner Jasvir Singh had studied up to 10th standard; whereas, the respondent Harsharanjit Singh is a law graduate. But, the serious draw-back in the case of Harsharanjit Singh is, that, he does not have his permanent residence at Village Raniwala, for which the Lambardar is to be appointed; and it has been justifiably asserted, that, he has a permanent residence at Malout Mandi, in Mohalla Nagpal, Ward No. 2; and in support of this contention, reference has been made to the voters' list for the Malout Assembly Constituency-1995, where name of Harsharanjit Singh appears at Sr. No. 885.