B.K.SRIVASTAVA, F.C. - (1.) DISTRICT Collector, Patiala appointed, respondent Jaswinder Singh as Lambardar of village Kuthakheri, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala vide order dated 29.09.04 with the following observations : "I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the candidates and have carefully scanned the record of the case. From the comparative merits of the candidates find that Jaswinder Singh is the most suitable candidate since he is matriculate and has also passed Technical course from I.T.I. He exercises very good influence in the village. He is member of Panchayat Samiti, Ghanaur and President of P.T.A. He has been taking part in the welfare activities of the village. He is very popular in his village. He has also been recommended by all the Revenue Officers below. I do not find any reason to differ with their recommendation and accordingly I appoint Jaswinder Singh as Lambardar of village Kutha Kheri, Tehsil Rajpura. Sanad be issued."
(2.) THE Divisional Commissioner, Patiala dismissed the petitioner's appeal vide impugned order dated 21.01.2005. The counsel for the petitioner has given the following arguments to assail these concurrent orders of Collector and Commissioner : (i) That there was a Panchayat resolution dated 10.05.2003 supporting the petitioner's candidature. (ii) That he is also matriculate like Jaswinder Singh. (iii) That more than 100 persons including ex-sarpanches supported him. Page 92 of the Collector's file contains majornama (recommendations from the people/respectables of the village) in the petitioner's favour which is signed by two ex-sarpanches and three lambardars. (Perusal of this page in Collector's file shows that there were just about 12-15 persons who signed it on the first page but along with the revision petition, the petitioner has attached a copy of this majornama which contains three additional pages, carrying signatures of many more persons, about another 100 persons. But, these additional pages are not part of the Collector's file). (iv) Petitioner owns 40 bighas of and whereas the respondent owns 22 bighas. (v) FIR was registered against the respondent in the year 2004 under sections 353, 332, 186, 294 and 34 IPC. The respondent's counsel has given following arguments to rebut the above arguments : (i) That Naksha nambardari and the order of Collector shows that the land owned by the petitioner is 7 bighas only, not 40 bighas. (ii) That aforesaid FIR has been cancelled and the complaintant has made statement before the Judicial Magistrate to withdraw his allegation and he agreed with the investigation report vide which the accused was exonerated. (A copy of this statement and investigation report was also shown to the counsel for the petitioner. He does not challenge this. In view of the investigation report and the statement of the complainant, Harbans Singh, no adverse cognisance of the said FIR could be taken against the respondent). (iii) Page 112-116 of Collector's file contains majornama of 151 persons in favour of the respondent, which shows over-whelming support for the respondent in the village. (iv) Respondent is a social worker. Page 106 of the Collector's file is a blood donation certificate in favour of the respondent. (v) The concluding para of the Collector's order itself speaks volumes in favour of the respondent.
(3.) AFTER conclusion of the arguments opportunity of rebuttal was given to the petitioner's counsel. The above facts given by the respondent are borne out by the record. Therefore, theses remain unrebutted. In concluding remarks, the petitioner's counsel said that respondent should be ignored because he had become member of Panchayat Samiti, Ghanaur and such a person could not do justice to the assignment of nambardari. He quoted an observation of Sh. C.D. Cheema, Financial Commissioner in ROR No. 562/91-92 in which it is said that the post of lambardar and Sarpanch should not be combined in one person as far as possible. The counsel for the respondent rebutted that his term as member of Panchayat Samiti already expired on 09.06.2007.;