P.RAM,J - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 25.02.2005 of Divisional Commissioner, Patiala passed in the matter of appointment of lambardar of Village Manakpur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are given in detail in the order of the District Collector, Patiala, which need not be repeated and may be read as part of this order. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties. A perusal of the order of the Collector indicates that the case was decided after quoting the merits and de-demerits of the candidates. The main objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the respondent had encroached upon the Panchayat land and he had specifically made a reference to demarcation report submitted by Tehsildar dated 12.05.01 in which it was indicated that the appointed candidate Prem Kumar had occupied some Panchayat land illegally. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent produced a copy of the order dated 16.12.05 of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class in which an allegation was made that the respondent had been signing as lambardar at a point of time when he was not competent to do so and complaint was also made by the petitioner under Sections 420/467/468/471/419 IPC in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura. Vide order dated 16.12.05, Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura quoted that no offence was made out against Prem Kumar. Regarding the allegation of encroachment of Panchayat land, the learned counsel for the respondent also produced a copy of an order of Distt. Development and Panchayats Officer in which Distt. Development and Panchayats Officer had also exonerated him of the allegation of illegal encroachment. Accordingly, I find that the choice of the Collector has rightly been upheld by the Commissioner and I find nothing tangible against the candidature of the respondent, Prem Kumar who appears to be relatively better placed being son of the deceased lambardar and had been recommended by all the subordinate revenue officers and also being equally educationally qualified as compared to the petitioner. No allegation of his mis-conduct had been proved on record. accordingly, I see no justification for granting any relief to the petitioner and dismiss the revision petition. Announced. Petition dismissed.;