ROMILA DUBEY,J - (1.) THIS revision petition is under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 22.12.2005 of Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of this case are that Gurbax Singh Lambardar of Village Burj Sidhawn died on 29.1.2004 and accordingly action was initiated for the appointment of new Lambardar. After mushtari munadi seven applications were received. However, only two candidates namely Sukhchain Singh, the present petitioner and Amandeep Singh present respondent No. 3 appeared before the District Collector, who vide his order dated 30.9.2004 appointed the respondent No. 3 Amandeep Singh as Lambardar of Village Burj Sidhwan. Aggrieved Sukhchain Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur which was dismissed on 22.12.2005. Hence the present revision petition. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner 10+2, young man of 31 years and own 22 kilas of land whereas the respondent is only matriculate and employed as clerk, in the Education Department Punjab, which is a transferable job from one school to another. Being a Government employee respondent's duty is from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on all the working days, and as such he cannot be available to the Revenue Officers and the public during the working days. The counsel therefore contended that being a Govt. employee and occupying a transferable job, is not the right choice for appointment of Lambardar. In support of his contention the counsel cited judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Amarjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab, 2001(1) RCR(Civil) 449 : 2000(2) PLJ 456 whereas the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the trial court on the ground that he is doing private work. The counsel contended that the petitioner belongs to an agricultural community and his father owns 22 kilas of land out of which petitioner's share is 7-1/2 acres land and the petitioner has also purchased more than 4 acres of land through Registered sale-deed 20.8.2004. The counsel contended that though father of the respondent was also a Lambardar, the respondent cannot be given the benefit of hereditary claim because the petitioner had an edge over the respondent. The counsel cited the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, 1973 PLJ 676. On the other hand the counsel for the respondent stated that there is no bar under the rules to appoint a Govt. employee as a Lambardar of village. In support of his contention the counsel cited orders dated 9.7.1997 passed by Sh. S.R. Bunger, IAS, Financial Commissioner in ROR 358 of 1995-96 Kuldip Singh v. Sarabjit Singh reported as 1997(4) RCR(Civil) 46 : 1997(2) PLJ 146. The counsel further contended that the petitioner was having no land at the time of application and he purchased the land only after submission of application for Lambardari. The counsel for the petitioner rebutted this argument of respondent's counsel, stating that the land is to be seen at the time of appointment and not at the time of submission of application. In support of his contention the counsel cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Indar Raj v. Financial Commissioner and others, 1994(3) RRR 562 : 1994 PLJ 473. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent is posted as clerk in the Government School of Village Burj Sidhwan and as such he is readily available to the residents of village. The respondent who was present in the court also admitted the fact that he is working as clerk in the Government School Burj Sidhwan. He agreed that his post is transferable and he can be transferred anywhere in Punjab.
(3.) AFTER hearing counsel for both the parties and carefully going through the orders as well as record of the lower courts, I am of the considered view that though there is no bar on the appointment of Government employee as Lambardar, in the present case the respondent is not obviously the right choice for the appointment of Lambardar because he is occupying a transferable government post and can be transferred at any time from the village which will cause inconvenience to the residents of village and the Revenue Officers to whom he is supposed to assist as Lambardar. Not only this, his duty is from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on all working days and as such he cannot discharge his duties as Lambardar during this period. On the other hand petitioner is young man of 31 years and energetic and more educated and as stated by him is not employed in any private firm at present and in merit has edge over the respondent. The respondent has obviously been given the benefit of hereditary claim whereas it is the settled law that the hereditary claim is to be given weightage only when both the candidates are equal in merit. It has been held by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bhag Singh v. Financial Commissioner Revenue, Haryana, 2001(1) RCR(Civil) 9 (P&H) (DB) that office of the Lambardar is not a hereditary office and son of a Lambardar shall not be automatically be appointed as Lambardar in place of his father. Preference on hereditary claim can only be given when other merits of the contesting candidate are found to be equal. In the instant case the petitioner is patently having an edge over the respondent in merit and as such the Collector has wrongly and illegally given the benefit of hereditary claim to the respondent. The respondent has not been able to give any proof that he worked as Sarabrah Lambardar during the life time of his father. The Lambardari is an office and nor a reward or gift, nor it could be regarded as mere honour or decoration. The first and foremost consideration which should prevail in making the appointment of a Lambardar, is to select a person who could be available readily to discharge the duties assigned to the office of Lambardar efficiently and effectively. In the present case, the petitioner is patently having an edge over the respondent. I, therefore, accept the revision petition and set aside the orders dated 30.9.2004 of Collector and orders dated 22.12.2005 of Commissioner and appoint the petitioner Sukhchain Singh as Lambardar of Village Burj Sidhwsan, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar. Both the parties be informed through their counsel. Petition allowed.;