ROMILA DUBEY, F.C. - (1.) THIS revision petition is under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 13.2.03 of Commissioner Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and order dated 29.8.02 of Collector Mukatsar.
(2.) BRIEFLY facts of this case are that consequent upon the death of Partap Singh lambardar of village Jasseana Tehsil and Distt. Mukatsar, action was initiated for the appointment of New lambardar. After mushtri munadi nine persons sent their applications. However only three candidates namely Bikkar Singh, Gurlal Singh and Baljinder Singh appeared before the District Collector, who after considering the merits of the candidates vide her order dated 29.8.02 appointed Bikkar Singh as lambardar of village Jasseana. Aggrieved Gurlal Singh and Baljinder Singh filed two separate appeals before Commissioner Ferozepur Division Ferozepur who decided both the appeals in a single order dated 13.3.2003 by dismissing the appeal of Baljinder Singh and accepting the appeal of Gurlal Singh and appointing Gurlal Singh as lambardar of village Jasseana mainly on the plea that he is younger in age, matriculate and owns 233 Kanals and 11 Marlas of land and further, his father remained Sarpanch of the village for about 15 years and he commands good respect in the village. Aggrieved Baljinder Singh filed the present revision petition. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds taken in the revision petition and argued that Gurlal Singh is an active member of the political parties and as such would not be a fit candidate for the appointment of lambardar because he can not spare time to assist the public administration and would all the time be serving his vested political interests. The counsel argued that the Commissioner had exceeded his jurisdiction while appointing Gurlal Singh respondent No. 2 as lambardar of the village because the appointing authority of lambardar is District Collector only and in case if any discrepancy in the choice of Distt. Collector, the Commissioner can only remand the case to Distt. Collector. As regards Bikkar Singh, the counsel alleged that the previous lambardar Partap Singh was residing in Rajasthan and died there. The counsel argued that Bikkar Singh was acting as Sarbrah lambardar without any authority of the law. Therefore, Bikkar Singh also cannot be given any weightage for the appointment of lambardar, and as such, the Collector has erred in appointing Bikkar Singh as lambardar of village Jasseana.
(3.) ON the other hand the counsel for the respondent argued that there is no perversity or illegality in the orders passed by the Commissioner. The counsel argued that the Commissioner, as revisional authority or appellant authority, is very well competent authority for the appointment of lambardar. In support of his contention, the counsel cited the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Tak Ram v. F.C. Haryana, 1998(2) PLJ 9.;