JAGPAL SINGH SANDHU,F.C. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 10.3.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.
(2.) IT pertains to the lambardari of village Jhingla, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur where where on the death of Sh. Sansar Singh previous lambardar of village, process to fill up the vacancy was started. Proclamation was made in the village for calling applications from the interested and eligible persons of the village. In response, five candidates applied for the said post including present petitioner and the respondent. Tehsildar, Mukerian and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mukerian, recommended the name of the respondent Jagir Singh and forwarded the case to District Collector, Hoshiarpur, who after hearing the parties and going through the merits of the candidates, appointed Jagdish Singh present petitioner as lambardar vide his order dated 10.6.2004. Against this order, Jagir Singh present respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar who accepted the same and reversed the order of District Collector by appointing Jagir Singh as Lambardar of village Jhingla as a suitable candidate. Now revision has been filed before this court. Counsel for the petitioner submitted in his written arguments that his candidate Jagdish Singh was 45 years of age whereas respondent was old man of 68 years. Petitioner was Matriculate where respondent was under Matric. Petitioner owned 56 Kanals of land which was sufficient as a security towards the land revenue, however, the land revenue has already been abolished, hence the size of land holding was not of much importance. Candidate Jagdish Singh was the son of the deceased lambardar and had a hereditary claim. Counsel cited Jaswant Singh v. FC (Appeals) Punjab, 2006(2) PLJ 232 (DB) where advantage had been given to the candidate who claimed hereditary claim. Petitioner was very respectable person among the villagers. One candidate withdrew in his favour. On the other hand, the respondent was an arrogant and unpopular man. He contested the election of Sarpanch and got only 17 votes and had been badly defeated. He was in illegal possession of village Phirni. Affidavit of Sarpanch and village Panchayat was attached with the file in support. Counsel further submitted that his candidate has been appointed by the District Collector after applying his judicious mind whose order should not be interfered with unless it was perverse or contained irregularities. Counsel cited the case Nirbhey Singh v. F.C., 2007(4) RCR(Civil) 405 (DB). Counsel, also relied upon following judgments : 1. Sat Pal v. F.C. Punjab, 2007(4) RCR(Civil) 405 (DB); 2. Mohinder Singh v. Jarnail Singh and others, 2006(4) RCR(Civil) 688 (FC); 3. Sada Ram v. Shashi Pal, 2005(1) RCR(Civil) 846 : 2006(1) PLJ 366 (FC). Counsel prayed for acceptance of revision.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent put forth arguments and also submitted in his written arguments that Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mukerian recommended the name of Jagir Singh respondent but District Collector, Hoshiarpur appointed Jagdish Singh as lambardar by ignoring the merits of the respondent Jagir Singh. He was more matured person of about 64 years. He was an ex-Army Officer, retired as Honorary Capt., more educated, received number of certificates from the Army during his service. He owned more land. The allegations levelled by the petitioner that respondent was in illegal possession of Gram Panchayat Land were totally false and frivolous. Commissioner had appointed him being more meritorious. Counsel for the respondent relied upon the following citations/judgements : 1. Subedar Puran Singh (retd.)/(FCP) v. Surjit Singh, 1988(1) RRR 157 : 1987 PLJ 499. 2. Ajit Singh v. Sadhu Singh, (FCP), 1992(2) RRR 143 : 1992 PLJ 280 : 1992(2) Cur. L.J. 129. 3. Hanuman v. Vijay Singh, 1997(2) RCR(Civil) 509 (FCP). Counsel prayed for dismissal of the revision. ;