P.RAM,J - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order of Commissioner, Patiala dated 25-2-02 vide which he had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30-10-01 passed by the Collector, Patiala.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent, Sucha Singh son of Ajmer Singh filed an application before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade (Tehsildar), Patiala to fill up the post of lambardar of village Panjeta on the basis of High Court order dated 2-8-20,00. Accordingly applications were invited and only Sucha Singh applied for the post of Lambardar. After verification, Assistant Collector Grade-II recommended the name of Sucha Singh and forwarded the case to Assistant Collector Grade-I, Patiala who agreed with the recommendation and sent the case to District Collector, Patiala for appointment. District Collector appointed Sucha Singh as lambardar vide his order dated 30-10-2001. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner Baljeet Kaur widow of Labh Singh filed an appeal before Commissioner, Patiala who dismissed the same vide order dated 25-2-2002. Hence this revision petition before this court. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to order dated 21-4-1998 of the then Financial Commissioner Appeals-I Smt. Shyama Mann and argued that vide this order the Financial Commissioner Appeals-I had set aside his appointment as lambardar and against which he had gone to the High Court and the High Court had maintained the order of Financial Commissioner Appeals-I and accordingly the case went back to the Revenue Officers for inviting fresh applications. The learned counsel further argued that he had attached with his petition an affidavit of the village sarpanch, chowkidar and other members of the panchayat i.e. S/Sh. Gurdev Singh, Jaggo Devi, Surjit Singh, Dhunda Ram and Kagroop Singh who had stated that no fresh proclamation was made in the village and the respondent had managed through the Revenue Officers to get his own appointment in a clandestine manner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also attached a copy of the voter list of Patiala Town Part 65 in which at S.No. 447 the name of Sucha Singh son of Ajmer Singh and at S.No. 448 name of Interjit Kaur wife of Sucha Singh had been indicated which showed that he was residing in the town and not in the village. The learned counsel finally argued that the report regarding munadi made in the village by the halqa patwari, dated 14-7-01 was suspicious and did not bear any credibility and requested for setting aside the orders of Collector and the Commissioner. The counsel further argued that it was also surprising that even though he was earlier appointed as lambardar and had also been issued sanad for the post, he would have applied for the post if the proclamation had been made in a proper manner. Learned counsel for the respondent could not rebut the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioner. In the light of the facts that have come before me, I find that arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner carry considerable weight. Accordingly, the orders of the Commissioner as well as Collector are set aside. The case is remanded back to the Collector for making selection after making a fresh proclamation in the village. Announced. Petition allowed.;