- (1.) In this second round of litigation between the parties, petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No.4 as lambardar of village Patti Paskan, Barnala Kalan. Kartar Singh lambardar of the village died on 25.4.1998 and the said post became vacant. The process for filling up the vacancy started through proclamation in the village. In pursuance of the proclamation, five persons including the petitioner and respondent No.4 applied. Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar vide their orders dated 24.12.1998 and 18 1.1999 recommended the name of respondent No.4. However, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawanshahr vide his order dated 9.2.1999 recommended name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lambardar. After considering the merits, the Collector, Nawanshahr vide his order dated 18.6.1999 appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar. Petitioner preferred the appeal before the Commissioner, who dismissed the same vide order dated 5.10.1999. Petitioner challenged the order before the Financial Commissioner, who accepted the revision petition and appointed the petitioner as Lambardar. Against the said order, respondent No.4 filed CWP No. 8853 of 2000, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.4.2003. Respondent No.4 filed LPA No. 229 of 2003 and vide order dated 26.8.2003, the Letters Patent Bench of this Court remanded the case to the Financial Commissioner for a fresh decision with specific direction that he shall remain uninfluenced by his earlier order dated 15.5.2000 and the order dated 23.4.2003 passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the Financial Commissioner heard the parties on merits and ultimately up-held the order of the Collector and appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No.4 does not own any land in Patti Paskan of which he has been appointed as Lambardar. As per Rule 14(ii) and 15(b) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules 'Headman' should be appointed from amongst the land owners. He further 3 argued that in case the Lambardar ceases to be land-owner in the estate of which he holds the office, he is to be removed from the said office. It is argued that respondent No.4 does not own any land in Patti Paskan and, therefore, he could not be appointed as Lambardar. The learned Financial Commissioner has re-iterated the observation of the Collector without considering the arguments raised by the petitioner. He further pointed out that the petitioner owns 36 kanals 8 marlas of land in Patti Paskan, whereas respondent No.4 purchased 5 marlas of land during the pendency of the case, therefore, no benefit can be availed by him. He did not own the land at the relevant time in the said Patti and once he is being appointed, proceedings under Rule 16(c) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act would be initiated against him. The learned counsel further argued that respondent No.4 is running a music shop in Nawanshahr, therefore, he would not be available to the villagers during the day time. Accordingly, he should not be appointed as Lambardar.;