Back
2000 Supreme(P&H) 1035
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER COOPERATION PUNJAB
K.S. Janjua, F.C.
Harjanak Singh - Appellant
Versus
Jagdev Singh - Respondent
ROA No. 28 of 1999.
Decided On : 30 August, 2000
For the Petitioner:Mr. Onkar Singh Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. K.S. Cheema, Advocate.
The appointment of a Lambardar without land in the Patti to which the Lambardari belongs is invalid under Rule 16(i)(c) of the Land Revenue Rules, and precedents play a significant role in interpreting and applying the rules.
Headnote:
Lambardar Appointment - Land Ownership - Rule 16(i)(c) of Land Revenue Rules - 1998-PLJ-428, 1997(2) PLJ-361, 1997-PLJ-361 - LLT-PLJ Vol.XLIII-1964-81 - (1934) Vol.XIII Page 47
Fact of the Case:
The process for appointment of a new Lambardar was initiated after the death of the previous Lambardar. The District Collector appointed Harjanak Singh as Lambardar, but this decision was overturned by the Commissioner Jalandhar Division in favor of Jagdev Singh. The petitioner appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of a Lambardar who does not own land in the Patti to which the Lambardari belongs is immediately invalidated by Rule 16(i)(c) of the Land Revenue Rules. The court also considered various precedents and ruled in favor of Jagdev Singh for the appointment as Lambardar.
Issues: The key issue was whether a candidate without land in the Patti to which the Lambardari belongs can be appointed as Lambardar, and the implications of such an appointment under Rule 16(i)(c) of the Land Revenue Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointment of a Lambardar without land in the Patti to which the Lambardari belongs is invalid under Rule 16(i)(c) of the Land Revenue Rules. The court also considered precedents and ruled in favor of Jagdev Singh for the appointment as Lambardar.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, the Commissioner's order was upheld, and the ruling favored Jagdev Singh for the appointment as Lambardar of village Pandori Nijjran.
K.S. Janjua, F.C. - On the death of Harcharan Singh Lambardar of village Pandori Nijjran, the process for appointment of new Lambardar was started. Proclamation was made and applications were invited. Harjanak Singh (petitioner) and Jagdev Singh (respondent) applied for the post. Naib Tehsildar recommended Harjanak Singh while Tehsildar and SDM recommended Jagdev Singh. District Collector Jalandhar appointed Harjanak Singh as Lambardar but this decision was upset by Commissioner Jalandhar Division who ruled in favour of Jagdev Singh. Hence the present appeal/petition.
2. Both candidates are eligible to be appointed as Lambardar and District Collectors choice should not generally be interfered with unless it is illegal or perverse, but in this case I am inclined to uphold the order of Commissioner Jalandhar Division in favour of Jagdev Singh because of the reasons given in succeeding paragraphs.
3. Admittedly, the Lambardari belongs to Gabli Patti and Harjanak Singh has no land in that Patti. Jagdev Singh fulfils the qualifications and has 55 kanals of land in Gabli Patti. The point which requires reconciliation here is whether a candidate who does not have land in the Patti to which Lambardari belongs, can be appointed as Lambardar for that Patti. Admittedly, there is no bar on such appointment. But such an appointment immediately attracts action under Rule 16(i)(c) of Land Revenue Rules, which renders such appointments invalid. Rule 16(i)(c) reads as follows :-
"16(i)(c) - in any other estate he ceases to be a land-owner in the estate or sub-division of the estate in respect which he holds office."
4. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my pointed attention to 1998-PLJ-428 (an ex-serviceman has to be given preference) an 1997(2) PLJ-361 (owning of land in Patti is not necessary - candidate must have land in the estate). My attention was also drawn in 1997-PLJ-361 according to which Sh. S.R. Bunger, Financial Commissioner has ruled as under :-
"(a) Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 - Lambardar, appointment of - Owning of landed property in the particular Patti in that Revenue Estate - Not necessary - Rule 16(i)(c) does not prescribe that a candidate must own landed property in the Patti - All vacancies of Lambardars - Filled up for the Estate and not for a particular Patti - All residents of the village eligible to apply for the post of Lambardar - Extent of property owned in the Estate as a whole to be taken into consideration - Ownership of land in a particular Patti - Not the pre-condition for such appointment - Wrong to say that candidate to be appointed as Lambardar must own landed property in the specific Patti for which he is to be appointed - Not the requirement of law either under the Act or the Rules, that a candidate must own landed property in the specific Patti - Requirement of ownership of property in the Estate - Insistence on ownership of property in the Patti, Taraf, Panna or Sub-Division of an Estate - Not justified."
5. While this rule holds sway for appointment, such appointment will be immediately debarred by Rule 16(i)(c). I also till recently was of the view, that only holding of land in the estate only in necessary and that holding of land in Patti to which Lambardari related was not necessary. But in this case I am in complete agreement with the views expressed by Sh. B.S. Grewal, FC in LLT-PLJ Vol.XLIII-1964-81 and Sh. Miles Irving FC in (1934) Vol.XIII Page 47. These are seminal rulings on the point of Lambardari in a Patti. According to the views expressed in these rulings an appointment can be made but such an appointment has to be set aside immediately under rule 16(i)(c) for not holding land in Sub Division of the estate.
6. Without going into the merits of the candidates, the question before me is whether it is in any circumstances admissible, justified, logical or even wise to appoint persons whose immediate dismissal is necessitated by the same appointing authority. It would obviously be
