IMPORTANT POINT
Review—Fresh notice to the party is necessary before an order reversing or modifying one’s own order after review is passed.

B.K. Srivastava, F.C. — Petitioner, Buta Singh was appointed as Lambardar of village Palheri, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar vide order dated 4­6-1997. Appeal preferred by the present respondent, Narata Singh was dismissed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division. In this appellate proceeding the petitioner Buta Singh was proceeded ex-parte. After dismissing Narata Singh’s appeal, Commissioner entertained his review application without serving a fresh notice to the petitioner Buta Singh who was then respondent before him. Commissioner accepted the review application vide his order dated 27-3-2001 and reversed his previous order dated 14-11-2000. Against this reviewed order the present petitioner preferred revision petition in this court which was dismissed by my predecessor on 18-9-2003 due to non appearance of the petitioner. My predecessor dismissed his revision petition by making an observation that his default in appearance showed his indifference and lack of respect for the court. The petitioner then filed a review application which is being decided by this order.

2. The petitioner’s counsel has advanced following arguments: -

(i) The impugned order of Commissioner vide which he reviewed and reversed his previous order is illegal because it was passed without issuing a fresh notice to him as warranted under the Punjab Land Revenue Act.

(ii) That the predecessor Financial Commissioner dismissed his revision petition in default of his appearance but the order passed shows as if he passed it on merits. In fact, it should have been a simple “dismissed in default” order so that its restoration could be applied for by the petitioner. He had to apply for review instead of restoration because the impugned order is a detailed order although it is shorn of discussion on merits of his case.

(iii) District Collector had appointed the petitioner after considering all aspects and the Collector’s choice was reversed by the Commissioner after entertaining review application without passing a speaking order as to why he reversed his order of dismissal of respondent’s appeal and how he found the present respondent, Narata Singh, superior to the petitioner. It is well settled that District Collector’s choice should be reversed only when it is perverse or unsustainable.

3. I admitted the review application of the petitioner by passing a detailed order dated 3.10.2005. Both the parties were accordingly heard.

After hearing both the parties I conclude as under:

(i) Commissioner’s impugned order suffers from legal infirmity because he did not serve a fresh notice to the petitioner which was necessary as per section 15(1)(c) of Punjab Land Revenue Act before an order reversing or modifying one’s own ord’er after review is passed.

(ii) The impugned order is infirm also due to the reason that it does not discuss the comparative merits of these two candidates.

(iii) The biggest drawback with the respondent Buta Singh (Ed-?) is that he is absolutely illiterate by his own admission. I have constantly taken stand that a completely illiterate person must not be appointed as Lambardar if literate/educated candidate is available because a Lambardar has to attest a variety of transactions and documents of great significance which cannot be comprehended/understood by an illiterate person. Times have changed since Lambardara Rules were framed a century ago when everybody was illiterate in rural areas.

(iv) The respondent says that he was appointed as Sarbrah by the deceased Lambardar and he, therefore, deserved preference on the ground of this experience. I disagree because his experience as Sarbrah is minimal, just for a period of four months only. Therefore, much value cannot be attached to this specially when he is illiterate.

(v) He is also too old, around 65 years of age. Due to this reason also he is absolutely unfit for appointment as Lambardar. Both the candidates are present before me and I cannot make out that the respondent, Narata Singh’s (si